HomeMy Public PortalAboutAppendix C_Geotechnical Investigation
(818) 994-8895
www.GeoConceptsInc.com
14428 Hamlin St., Suite 200, Van Nuys, CA 91401 + 22601 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 235, Malibu, CA 92065
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
Proposed Apartment Building
1600 West Commonwealth Avenue
Fullerton, CA
for
Meta Housing Corporation
11150 West Olympic Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Project 22-02182
August 23, 2022
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
SCOPE ......................................................................................................................................... 1
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................... 1
SITE DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................... 2
Location and Description .......................................................................................................... 2
Drainage ................................................................................................................................... 2
Groundwater ............................................................................................................................. 2
FIELD EXPLORATION ................................................................................................................. 2
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ........................................................................................................... 3
Stratigraphy .............................................................................................................................. 3
Artificial Fill (Af) .................................................................................................................... 3
Quaternary Alluvium (Qal) .................................................................................................... 3
Excavation Characteristics ....................................................................................................... 3
Landslides ................................................................................................................................ 3
Seismic Hazards ...................................................................................................................... 4
Seismic Effects ..................................................................................................................... 4
Ground Rupture ............................................................................................................... 4
Ground Shaking ............................................................................................................... 4
Tsunamis & Seiches ........................................................................................................ 5
Earthquake Induced Landslides ....................................................................................... 6
Liquefaction ..................................................................................................................... 6
Seismically Induced Settlements ..................................................................................... 8
CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................... 9
RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................ 9
Specific ..................................................................................................................................... 9
Drainage and Maintenance ...................................................................................................... 9
Grading and Earthwork .......................................................................................................... 11
Flatland Grading ..................................................................................................................... 11
Foundations ............................................................................................................................ 12
Foundations ............................................................................................................................ 13
Settlement .............................................................................................................................. 14
Expansive Soils ...................................................................................................................... 14
Excavations ............................................................................................................................ 15
Excavations Maintenance – Erosion Control .......................................................................... 15
Slabs on Grade ...................................................................................................................... 16
Decking .................................................................................................................................. 17
REVIEWS ................................................................................................................................... 17
Plan Review and Plan Notes .................................................................................................. 17
Construction Review .............................................................................................................. 18
LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................. 18
General ................................................................................................................................... 18
CONSTRUCTION NOTICE ........................................................................................................ 19
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I SITE INFORMATION
LOCATION MAP
GROUNDWATER MAP
USGS FAULT MAP
SEISMIC HAZARD MAP
PLOT MAP
FIELD EXPLORATION
BORINGS 1 THROUGH 4
APPENDIX II LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
LABORATORY RECAPITULATION - TABLE 1
LABORATORY RECAPITULATION - TABLE 2
FIGURES S.1 THROUGH S.3
FIGURES C.1 THROUGH C.11
FIGURES SV.1 THROUGH SV.4
FIGURE ATT. 1
APPENDIX III ANALYSES
LATERAL
LIQUEFACTION
SEISMIC EVALUATION
APPENDIX IV REFERENCES
August 23, 2022 Page 1
Project 22-02182
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation on a
portion of the subject property. The purpose of this investigation has been to ascertain the
subsurface conditions pertaining to the proposed project. The work performed for the project
included reconnaissance mapping, description of earth materials, obtaining representative
samples of earth materials, laboratory testing, engineering analyses, and preparation of this
report. Results of the project include findings, conclusions, and appropriate recommendations.
SCOPE
The scope of this investigation included the following:
Review of preliminary plans by the client.
Review of four borings. Explorations were backfilled with the excavated materials but not
compacted.
Preparation of the enclosed Plot Map, (see Appendix I).
Sampling of representative earth materials, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses (see
Appendix II).
Review of referenced materials (see Appendix V).
Presentation of findings, conclusions, and recommendations for the proposed project.
Hahn & Associates, Inc. prepared the topographic base map utilized in this investigation.
Preliminary building plans were prepared by studioneleven and incorporated onto the base map
for this investigation.
The scope of this investigation is limited to the project area explored as depicted on the Plot
Map. This report has not been prepared for use by other parties or for purposes other than the
proposed project. GeoConcepts, Inc. should be consulted to determine if additional work is
required when our work is used by others or if the scope of the project has changed. If the
project is delayed for more than one year, this office should be contacted to verify the current
site conditions and to prepare an update report.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
It is our understanding that the site will be developed with a three story at grade apartment
building. Anticipated foundations will range from 4 to 5 kips per lineal foot and 100-200 kips for
column foundations. The proposed development is depicted on the enclosed Plot Map.
Grading will consist of conventional cut and fill methods. Final plans have not been prepared
and await the conclusions and recommendations of this investigation. These plans should be
reviewed by GeoConcepts, Inc. to ensure that our recommendations have been followed.
August 23, 2022 Page 2
Project 22-02182
SITE DESCRIPTION
Location and Description
Access to the property is via Commonwealth Avenue from Basque Avenue (see Location Map in
Appendix I). The site is developed with a parking area and is otherwise vacant and generally
unimproved.
The pad has a light growth of vegetation consisting of grasses, lawn areas, shrubs and trees.
Adjacent sites are developed with a gas station and parking area to the east, bounded by
Commonwealth Avenue to the north, and a rail line to the south and west. Adjacent structures
to the east are greater than 20 feet from the property line.
Drainage
Surface water at the site consists of direct precipitation onto the property. Much of this water
drains as sheet flow down descending slopes to low-lying areas, offsite, and/or to the street. No
area drains and/or subdrain outlet pipes were observed on the property.
Groundwater
The subsurface exploration encountered groundwater at a depth of 42 feet. The depth to
groundwater, when encountered in the explorations, is only valid for the date of exploration.
Based on the Seismic Hazard Zone Report by the California Geological Survey (formerly
Division of Mines and Geology), the depth to historical high groundwater level is about 20 feet
below the surface. Seasonal fluctuations of groundwater levels may occur by varying amounts
of rainfall, irrigation and recharge.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The scope of the field exploration was developed based on the preliminary plans of the
proposed development available at the time of the exploration and was limited to the area of the
proposed development. The locations of the explorations are depicted on the Plot Map.
The field exploration of the site was conducted on July 15, 2022. The geotechnical conditions
were mapped by a representative of this office (refer to Exploration Logs). Subsurface
exploration was performed by drill rig into the underlying earth materials. Explorations were
excavated to a maximum depth of 50 feet. All explorations were backfilled and tamped upon
completion of down-hole observation. However, some settlement within exploration areas
should be anticipated.
Detailed descriptions of the earth materials encountered during the field exploration are
provided in the Boring Logs in Appendix I.
Undisturbed and bulk samples representative of the earth materials were obtained and
transported to our laboratory. Undisturbed Modified California (MC) samples and Standard
Penetration Test (SPT) samples were obtained within the explorations through the use of a thin-
walled steel sampler with successive blows of a 140 pound drop hammer dropped thirty inches
August 23, 2022 Page 3
Project 22-02182
(30"). MC samples were retained in brass rings of two and one-half inches (2½") in diameter
and one inch (1") in height. The samples were transported in moisture tight containers. The
results of the laboratory testing and a summary of the test procedures are included within
Appendix II.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Stratigraphy
The site is underlain by Quaternary (Q) earth materials and artificial fill. The earth materials
encountered on the subject property are briefly described below. Approximate depths and more
detailed descriptions are given in the enclosed Exploration Logs (see Appendix I).
Artificial Fill (Af)
Artificial fill was encountered on the subject site. Fill was encountered in all of the borings
ranging from (0.25) to (0.33) feet in thickness. Contact between the fill and the underlying soil
was exposed within the exploratory boring. Fill generally consists of sand with abundant rock
fragments.
Quaternary Alluvium (Qal)
Alluvial deposits occupy the site. Alluvium is weathered bedrock material and sediments that
have been eroded from natural slopes and deposited in generally flat lying areas. Alluvium
primarily consists of medium to dark brown, moderately firm to stiff, silty sand to sandy silt.
These deposits were encountered within all the exploratory borings.
Excavation Characteristics
Subsurface exploration was performed through the use of hollow-stem drill rig excavating into
generally fill and alluvium. Due to the nature of hollow stem drilling, observation of the caving
potential of the soil is not possible. Excavation difficulty is considered normal within the earth
materials encountered and should not be limited to consideration of rippability of the earth
material. Cohesionless sandy material, although easy to remove, may be subject to sloughing
and caving. Therefore difficulty may be encountered maintaining an open excavation. Fine
grained materials such as clays and silts may increase in density with depth due to overburden
pressure. Thus, difficulty excavating into the material may increase with depth.
Landslides
Landslides are a mass wasting phenomenon in mountainous and hillside areas which include a
wide range of movements. In Southern California common slope movements include shallow
surficial slumps and flows, deep-seated rotational and translational bedrock failures, and rock
falls. Landslides occur when the stability of the slopes change to an unstable condition resulting
from a number of factors. Common natural factors include the physical and/or chemical
weathering of earth materials, unfavorable geologic structure relative to the slope geometry,
erosion at the toe of a slope, and precipitation. These factors may be further aggravated by
human activities such as excavations, removal of lateral support at the toe of a slope, surcharge
at the top of a slope, clearing of vegetation, alteration of drainage, and the addition of water from
irrigation and leaking pipes.
August 23, 2022 Page 4
Project 22-02182
The subject site is relatively flat with very little topography which precludes the potential for
landslides and/or other hazards typically associated with hillside properties.
Seismic Hazards
Seismic Effects
During an earthquake there are several primary geologic hazards such as ground rupture,
ground shaking, landslides, and liquefaction that can adversely affect property, structures, and
improvements. On hillside properties, the potential exists for landsliding from ground shaking
which may adversely affect property, structures, and improvements. Properties near and along
the coastline may potentially be affected by inundation due to tsunamis generated from a
seismic event. The State of California has prepared maps that detail areas which may require
assessment for ground rupture, landsliding and/or liquefaction. Strong ground shaking is the
primary hazard that causes damage from earthquakes and these areas have been zoned with a
high level of seismic shaking hazard. The historical earthquake record in Southern California is
less than 200 years; therefore, potential damage from a seismic event is not limited areas that
have experienced damage in the past. Based on the above discussion, earthquake insurance
with building code upgrades is suggested.
Although all of Southern California is within a seismically active region, some areas have a
higher potential for seismic damage than others. The current scientific technology does not
provide for accurate prediction of the time, location, or magnitude of an earthquake event.
It should be understood that the following discussion is an evaluation of risk and degree of
potential damage to a structure if a fault were to rupture on or near the site and does not imply
that a fault may or may not be present beneath the site. An assessment of damage to the
structure is based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale which is correlated to observed
damage from seismic events. Intensity/damage associated with an earthquake is not directly
correlated to magnitude. For a given magnitude of an earthquake, the intensity/damage to a
structure may vary depending on the subsurface earth materials, type of fault rupture,
hypocenter depth, and local building practices in effect during the construction of a structure.
An evaluation of the seismic effects on a property is designed to provide the client with rational
and believable seismic data that could affect the property during the lifetime of the proposed
improvements. The minimum design acceleration for a project is listed in the Building Code. It
is recommended that the structural design of the proposed project be based on current design
and acceleration practices of similar projects in the area. The project structural designer should
review and verify all of the seismic design parameters prior to utilizing the information for the
design.
Ground Rupture
Ground rupture is the result of movement from a Holocene-active fault. A fault is a fracture in
the crust of the earth along which rocks on one side have moved relative to those on the other
side. No known Holocene-active fault is mapped on the subject site.
Ground Shaking
Ground shaking caused by an earthquake is likely to occur at the site during the lifetime of the
development due to the proximity of several Holocene-active and Pre-Holocene faults.
August 23, 2022 Page 5
Project 22-02182
Generally, on a regional scale, quantitative predictions of ground motion values are linked to
peak acceleration and repeatable acceleration, which are a response to earthquake magnitudes
relative to the fault distance from the subject property. Southern California major earthquakes
are generally the result of large-scale earth processes in which the Pacific plate slides
northwestward relative to the North American plate at about 2 inches/year.
The potential for lurching, surface manifestations, landslides, and topographic related features
from ground/seismic shaking can occur almost anywhere in Southern California. Proper
maintenance of properties can mitigate some of the potential for these types of manifestations,
but the potential cannot be completely eliminated. Many structures were built before earthquake
codes were adopted; others were built according to codes formulated when less was known
about the intensity of near-fault shaking. Therefore, the margin of safety is difficult to quantify.
A publicly available computer program provided by the United States Geological Survey (USGS)
was utilized for the probabilistic prediction of peak horizontal ground acceleration from digitized
design maps of Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) ground response. A summary of the
seismic design parameters is provided in Appendix III. The project structural designer should
verify all of the input parameters and review all of the resulting seismic design parameters prior
to utilizing the information for the design.
Tsunamis & Seiches
Properties located along the coastline have a potential for inundation from a tsunami. Tsunamis
are ocean waves produced by sudden water displacement resulting generally from offshore
earthquakes, large submarine landslides or submarine volcanic eruptions. Once generated, a
tsunami can travel thousands of miles at high speeds up to 400 miles per hour. However, the
topography of the sea floor and Channel Islands may minimize the risk of a large tsunami
generated from a distant offshore earthquake impacting the Southern California coast.
The 1964 Alaskan Earthquake produced sea waves of less than four feet in the Los Angeles
Harbor. The 1960 Chilean Earthquake produced sea waves of about five feet at Redondo
Beach. Little data exists to evaluate the potential for a local tsunami generated off the coast of
Southern California. Historically, two documented tsunamis have been generated off the coast
of Southern California. The 1812 Santa Barbara Earthquake was reported to generate (10) to
(12) foot high sea waves at Gaviota. The 1927 Point Arguello Ms 7.3 Earthquake produced run-
up heights of (5) feet at Port San Luis.
The lower threshold for tsunami development is considered to be about a magnitude of M6.5.
Offshore faults and the Santa Monica faults appear capable of producing a magnitude of M6.5
earthquake and conceivably producing a sea wave. In their 2003 study, Evaluation of Tsunami
Risk to Southern California Coastal Cities, Legg et al modeled tsunami propagation and run-up
from a potential M7 to M7.4 magnitude earthquake on the offshore Catalina fault near Santa
Catalina Island. The report concluded that run-up heights along the coast of Southern California
could be on the order of 2 to 4 meters. Their stated recurrence times are on the order of a few
hundred years for a large earthquake on offshore faults.
Seiches are waves with low-energy within reservoirs, lakes, and bays that are generally
produced by strong earthquake shaking. The proposed project is not located near a reservoir,
lake, or bay; therefore, the potential for damage to the site from a seiche is considered nil.
August 23, 2022 Page 6
Project 22-02182
Earthquake Induced Landslides
The State of California has prepared Seismic Hazard Zone Reports to regionally map areas of
potential increased risk of permanent ground displacement based on historic occurrence of
landslide movement, local topographic expression, and geological and geotechnical subsurface
conditions. The maps may not identify all areas that have potential for earthquake-induced
landsliding, strong ground shaking, or other earthquake-related geologic hazards. The subject
site is not located within an earthquake-induced landslide hazard zone on the State of California
Seismic Hazard Map.
The subject site is relatively flat with very little topography which precludes the potential for
landslides and/or other hazards typically associated with hillside properties.
Liquefaction
The State of California has prepared Seismic Hazard Zone Reports to regionally map areas
where historic occurrence of liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical and groundwater
conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacement. The maps may not identify
all areas that have potential for liquefaction, strong ground shaking, and other earthquake and
geologic hazards. The subject site is located within a liquefaction hazard zone on the State of
California Seismic Hazard Zone Map.
Liquefaction is a process by which sediments below the water table temporarily lose strength
and behave as a viscous liquid rather than a solid. The types of sediments most susceptible are
clay-free deposits of sand and silts; occasionally gravel liquefies. Liquefaction can occur when
seismic waves, primarily shear waves, pass through saturated granular layers distorting the
granular structure, and causing loosely packed groups of particles to collapse. These collapses
increase the pore-water pressure between grains if drainage cannot occur. If the pore-water
pressure rises to a level approaching the weight of the overlying soil, the granular layer
temporarily behaves as a viscous liquid rather than a solid.
In the liquefied condition, soil may deform with little shear resistance; deformations large enough
to cause damage to buildings and other structures are called ground failures. The ease with
which a soil can be liquefied depends primarily on the looseness of the material, the depth,
thickness and areal extent of the liquefied layer, the ground slope and the distribution of loads
applied by buildings and other structures.
Liquefaction induced ground deformations (detailed below) will have an effect on the proposed
and existing development that can result in significant structural damage, collapse or partial
collapse of a structure, especially if there is significant differential settlement or lateral spreading
between adjacent structural elements. Even without collapse, significant settlement or lateral
spreading could result in significant structural damage including, but not limited to, blocked
doors and windows that could trap occupants.
To quantify the potential for liquefaction at the subject site two borings were drilled to test the
soils and collect samples. Site liquefaction analysis of the soils underlying the subject site was
performed using the computer program LiquefyPro by CivilTech Software. LiquefyPro is
software that evaluates liquefaction potential and calculates the settlement of soil deposits due
to seismic loads. The program is based on the most recent publications of the NCEER
Workshop and SP117 Implementation. The program requires in-situ test data of the soils,
laboratory soils data, and earthquake design input.
August 23, 2022 Page 7
Project 22-02182
For the PGA corresponding to the PGAM, seismic induced liquefaction settlements shall be
determined. The predominant earthquake magnitude may be obtained from the USGS
Interactive Deaggregation web site: https://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/. A 2%
probability of exceedance in 50 years (2475-year return period) shall be used (either modal or
mean values may be used). Potential seismic-induced settlements shall be determined when
the safety factor is less than 1.3. Deformations of any foundations shall be such that the
foundations of the buildings or other structures do not lose their ability to carry gravity loads and
that collapse of the building or other structures is prevented.
The following earthquake input parameters and groundwater conditions were adopted for the
analysis.
Earthquake Magnitude
Peak Horizontal
Ground
Acceleration
Groundwater
Level During
Testing
Groundwater
Level During
Earthquake
7.3
(2% probability of exceedance in
50 years)
0.734
(PGAm) 42 feet 20 feet
Based on Bray and Sancio’s 2006 publication regarding liquefaction potential of fine grained soils,
layers that with a saturated water content to Liquid Limit ratio less than 80% and/or a Plasticity
Index higher than 18 are not susceptible to liquefaction. The table below presents which layers
have been excluded from the liquefaction analysis based on the above guidelines.
Boring 1
Depth of Layer
(ft)
Fines
Content
(%)
Saturated
Wc (%)
Liquid
Limit Wc/LL Plasticity
Index
10.0 – 15.0 66 20.7 38 0.55 16
20 – 25.0 70 18.6 25 0.74 3
Boring 2
Depth of
Layer (ft)
Fines
Content (%)
Saturated
Wc (%)
Liquid
Limit Wc/LL Plasticity
Index
7.5 – 15.0 66 25.3 35 0.72 10
20.0 – 27.5 76 22.3 29 0.77 4
35.0 – 45.0 61 18.1 24 0.75 6
The results of the liquefaction analysis indicate a potential for liquefaction with the design
earthquake input parameters. The following are the results of our liquefaction analysis:
Total Settlement (in) Differential Settlement (in)
3.19 1.60
August 23, 2022 Page 8
Project 22-02182
Surface Manifestations
The determination of whether surface manifestation of liquefaction (such as sand boils, ground
fissures etc.) will occur during earthquake shaking at a level-ground site can be made using the
method outlined by Ishihara (1985). It is emphasized that settlement may occur, even with the
absence of surface manifestation. Youd and Garris (1994 and 1995) evaluated the Ishihara
method and concluded that the method is not appropriate for level ground sites subject to lateral
spreading and/or ground oscillation.
Based upon the depth to groundwater, surface manifestations of liquefaction should not pose
any significant hazard to the proposed development provided the recommendations contained
within this report are followed and maintained.
Lateral Spreads
Whereas the potential for flow slides may exist at a building site, the degradation in undrained
shear resistance arising from liquefaction may lead to limited lateral spreads (of the order of feet
or less) induced by earthquake inertial loading. Such spreads can occur on gently sloping
ground or where nearby drainage or stream channels can lead to static shear stress biases on
essentially horizontal ground (Youd, 1995). At larger cyclic shear strains, the effects of dilation
may significantly increase post liquefaction undrained shear resistance. However, incremental
permanent deformations will still accumulate during portions of the earthquake load cycles when
low residual resistance is available. Such low resistance will continue even while large
permanent shear deformations accumulate through a ratcheting effect. Such effects have
recently been demonstrated in centrifuge tests to study liquefaction induced lateral spreads, as
described by Balakrishnan et al. (1998). Once earthquake loading has ceased, the effects of
dilation under static loading can mitigate the potential for a flow slide.
It is clear from past earthquakes that damage to structures can be severe, if permanent ground
displacements on the order of several feet occur. However, during the Northridge earthquake
significant damage to building structures (floor slab and wall cracks) occurred with less than one
(1) foot of lateral spread. The complexities of post-liquefaction behavior of soils noted above,
coupled with the additional complexities of potential pore water pressure redistribution effects
and the nature of earthquake loading on the sliding mass, lead to difficulties in providing specific
guidelines for lateral spread evaluations.
Based upon the depth to groundwater, liquefaction lateral spreads should not pose any
significant hazard to the proposed development.
Seismically Induced Settlements
Seismic settlement occurs when cohesionless soils densify as result of ground shaking.
Typically seismically induced settlement is greatest in loose cohesionless sands. Lee and
Albaisa (1974) and Yoshimi (1975) studied the volumetric strains (or settlements) in saturated
sands due to dissipation of excess pore pressures generated in saturated granular soils by the
cyclic ground motions. The volumetric strain, in the absence of lateral flow or spreading, results in
settlement. Liquefaction-induced settlement could result in collapse or partial collapse of a
structure, especially if there is significant differential settlement between adjacent structural
elements. Even without collapse, significant settlement could result in blocked doors and
windows that could trap occupants.
Based upon the liquefaction analysis, liquefaction induced settlement is estimated to be 3.19
inch and differential settlement of 1.60 inch.
August 23, 2022 Page 9
Project 22-02182
CONCLUSIONS
1. Based on the results of this investigation and a thorough review of the proposed
development, as discussed, the project is suitable for the intended use providing the
following recommendations are incorporated into the design and subsequent construction
of the project. Also, the development must be performed in an acceptable manner
conforming to building code requirements of the controlling governing agency.
2. Based on the State of California Seismic Hazard Maps, the subject site is located within a
liquefaction hazard zone. Based upon the liquefaction analysis, liquefaction induced
settlement is estimated to be 3.19 inch and differential settlement of 1.60 inch.
3. Based on the State of California Seismic Hazard Maps, the subject site is not located
within an earthquake-induced landslide hazard zone.
4. The SITE CLASS based on California Building Code is D.
5. Based upon field observations, laboratory testing and analysis, the alluvium found in the
exploratory borings should possess sufficient strength to support the compacted fill blanket
for the proposed three story at grade apartment building.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Specific
1. To create a uniform building pad for the proposed three story at grade apartment building,
the existing fill and soil should be removed to competent alluvium and replaced as
compacted fill. In addition, the proposed removals should extend a minimum of four feet
below the proposed foundations. Grading should be performed as outlined the Grading
and Earthwork section below.
2. The proposed three story at grade apartment building should be supported on foundations
embedded into compacted fill. Foundations should be designed as outlined the
Foundations section below.
3. The soils chemistry results should be incorporated into the design of the proposed project.
4. The property owner shall maintain the site as outlined in the Drainage and Maintenance
Section.
Drainage and Maintenance
Maintenance of properties must be performed to minimize the chance of serious damage and/or
instability to improvements. Most problems are associated with or triggered by water.
Therefore, a comprehensive drainage system should be designed and incorporated into the final
plans. In addition, pad areas should be maintained and planted in a way that will allow this
drainage system to function as intended. The property owner shall be fully responsible for
dampness or water accumulation caused by alteration in grading, irrigation or installation of
improper drainage system, and failure to maintain drain systems. The following are specific
drainage, maintenance, and landscaping recommendations. Reductions in these
recommendations will reduce their effectiveness and may lead to damage and/or instability to
August 23, 2022 Page 10
Project 22-02182
the improvements. It is the responsibility of the property owner to ensure that improvements,
structures and drainage devices are maintained in accordance with the following
recommendations and the requirements of all applicable government agencies.
Drainage
Positive pad drainage should be incorporated into the final plans. The pad should slope away
from the footings at a minimum five percent slope for a horizontal distance of ten feet. In areas
where there is insufficient space for the recommended ten foot horizontal distance concrete or
other impermeable surface should be provided for a minimum of three feet adjacent the
structure. Pad drainage should be at a minimum of two percent slope where water flow over
lawn or other planted areas. Drainage swales should be provided with area drains about every
fifteen feet. Area drains should be provided in the rear and side yards to collect drainage. All
drainage from the pad should be directed so that water does not pond adjacent to the
foundations or flow toward them. Roof gutters and downspouts are required for the proposed
structures and should be connected into a buried area drain system. All drainage from the site
should be collected and directed via non-erosive devices to a location approved by the building
official. Area drains, subdrains, weep holes, roof gutters and downspouts should be inspected
periodically to ensure that they are not clogged with debris or damaged. If they are clogged or
damaged, they should be cleaned out or repaired.
Landscaping (Planting)
The property owner is advised not to develop planter areas between patios, sidewalk and
structures. Planters placed immediately adjacent to the structures are not recommended. If
planters are proposed immediately adjacent to structures, impervious above-grade or below-
grade planter boxes with solid bottoms and drainage pipes away from the structure are
suggested. All slopes should be maintained with a dense growth of plants, ground-covering
vegetation, shrubs and trees that possess dense, deep root structures and require a minimum of
irrigation. Plants surrounding the development should be of a variety that requires a minimum of
watering. It is recommended that a landscape architect be consulted regarding planting
adjacent to improvements. It will be the responsibility of the property owner to maintain the
planting. Alterations of planting schemes should be reviewed by the landscape architect.
Irrigation
An adequate irrigation system is required to sustain landscaping. Over-watering resulting in
runoff and/or ground saturation must be avoided. Irrigation systems must be adjusted to
account for natural rainfall conditions. Any leaks or defective sprinklers must be repaired
immediately. To mitigate erosion and saturation, automatic sprinkling systems must be adjusted
for rainy seasons. A landscape architect should be consulted to determine the best times for
landscape watering and the proper usage.
Pools/Plumbing
Leakage from a swimming pool or plumbing can produce a perched groundwater condition that
may cause instability or damage to improvements. Therefore, all plumbing should be leak-free.
August 23, 2022 Page 11
Project 22-02182
Grading and Earthwork
Proposed grading will consist of remedial grading and foundation excavations.
Remedial grading is recommended within the building areas in order to remove the existing fill
and upper portion of the alluvial soils. Based on the conditions encountered in the explorations
the recommended removals are anticipated to depths of about six feet from the existing grade.
The over-excavation should extend a minimum of four feet beyond the building perimeters, and
to an extent equal to the depth of fill below the new foundations. If the proposed structure
incorporates exterior columns (such as for an overhang) the over-excavation should also
encompass these areas.
Following the completion of the over-excavation, the subgrade soils should be evaluated by the
project geotechnical engineer to verify their suitability to support the structural fill as well as to
support the foundation loads of the proposed development. This evaluation may include
probing and proof-rolling to identify any soft, loose or otherwise unstable soils that must be
removed. Some localized areas of deeper excavation may be required if additional fill materials
or dry, loose, porous or otherwise unsuitable materials are encountered at the base of the over-
excavation.
Flatland Grading
1. Prior to commencement of work, a pre-grading meeting shall be held. Participants at this
meeting will consist of the contractor, the owner or his representative, and the soils engineer.
The purpose of the meeting is to avoid misunderstanding of the recommendations set forth in
this report that might cause delays in the project.
2. Prior to placement of fill, all vegetation, rubbish, and other deleterious material should be
disposed of offsite. The proposed structures should be staked out in the field by a surveyor.
This staking should, as a minimum, include areas for overexcavation, toes of slopes, tops of
cuts, setbacks, and easements. All staking shall be offset from the proposed grading area at
least five feet (5'). Line and grade verification is not provided by GeoConcepts, Inc.
3. The natural ground, that is determined to be satisfactory for the support of the filled ground,
shall then be scarified to a depth of at least six inches (6") and moistened as required. The
scarified ground should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum laboratory
density (ASTM D 1557).
4. The fill soils shall consist of materials approved by the project Soils Engineer or his
representative. These materials may be obtained from the excavation areas and any other
approved sources, and by blending soils from one or more sources. The material used shall
be free from organic vegetable matter and other deleterious substances, and shall not contain
rocks greater than eight inches (8") in diameter nor of a quantity sufficient to make compaction
difficult.
5. The approved fill material shall be placed in approximately level layers six inches (6") thick,
and moistened as required. Each layer shall be thoroughly mixed to attain uniformity of
moisture in each layer.
August 23, 2022 Page 12
Project 22-02182
When the moisture content is less than the optimum moisture content, as specified by the
Soils Engineer, water shall be added and thoroughly mixed in until the moisture content is a
minimum of the optimum moisture content to (3) percent above the optimum moisture content.
When the moisture content of the fill is (3) percent or more above the optimum moisture
content as specified by the Soils Engineer, the fill material shall be aerated by scarifying or
shall be blended with additional materials and thoroughly mixed until the moisture content is
within (3) percent above the optimum moisture content.
Each layer of fill material shall be compacted to a minimum of (90) percent of the maximum
dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557, using approved compaction equipment. Where
cohesionless soil having less than (15) percent finer than (0.005) millimeters is used for fill, the
fill material shall be compacted to a minimum of (95) percent of the maximum dry density.
6. Review of the fill placement should be provided by the Soils Engineer or his representative
during the progress of grading. In general, density tests (ASTM D 1556) and (ASTM D 2922 &
3017) will be made at intervals not exceeding two feet (2') of fill height or every 500 cubic
yards of fill placed.
7. During the inclement part of the year, or during periods when rain is threatening, all fill that has
been spread and awaits compaction shall be compacted before stopping work for the day or
before stopping because of inclement weather. These fills, once compacted, shall have the
surfaces sloped to drain to one area where water may be removed.
Work may start again, after the rainy period, once the site has been reviewed by the Soils
Engineer and he has given his authorization to resume. Loose materials not compacted prior
to the rain shall be removed and aerated so that the moisture content of these fills will be
within (3) percent of the optimum moisture content.
Surface materials previously compacted before the rain, shall be scarified, brought to the
proper moisture content, and re-compacted prior to placing additional fill, if deemed necessary
by the Soils Engineer.
8. Review of geotechnical data available for the local vicinity of the site indicates that septic
tanks, seepage pits, or leach fields may be encountered during site grading. If encountered,
these should be drained of effluent or drilled out if they have been backfilled. The cleaned-out
area should be inspected by the soils engineer and governing inspector prior to backfill. The
pool may be filled with approved compacted fill, lean concrete, or gravel. Whichever backfill
material is selected, at least five feet (5') of approved manmade fill, placed at 90 percent
relative compaction should cap the pool.
Foundations
It is recommended that the proposed structure be founded into compacted fill.
Conventional Foundations
The minimum continuous footing size is (18) inches wide and (24) inches deep into the
compacted fill, measured from the lowest adjacent grade. Continuous footings may be
proportioned, using a bearing value of (2000) pounds per square foot. Column footings placed
into the compacted fill may be proportioned, using a bearing value of (2500) pounds per square
August 23, 2022 Page 13
Project 22-02182
foot, and should be a minimum of (2) feet in width and (24) inches deep, below the lowest
adjacent grade.
All continuous footings shall be reinforced with a minimum of (4) #(5) bars, two placed near the
top and two near the bottom. Reinforcing recommendations are minimums and may be revised
by the structural engineer.
The bearing values given above are net bearing values; the weight of concrete below grade may
be neglected. These bearing values may be increased by one-third (1/3) for temporary loads,
such as, wind and seismic forces.
Lateral loads may be resisted by friction at the base of the foundations and by passive
resistance within the compacted fill. A coefficient of friction of (0.4) may be used between the
foundations and the compacted fill. The passive resistance may be assumed to act as a fluid
with a density of (300) pounds per square foot, with a maximum earth pressure of (3000)
pounds per square foot. When combining passive and friction for resistance of lateral loads, the
passive component should be reduced by one-third.
All footing excavation depths will be measured from the lowest adjacent grade of recommended
bearing material. Footing depths will not be measured from any proposed elevations or grades.
Any foundation excavations that are not the recommended depth into the recommended bearing
materials will not be acceptable to this office.
Mat Foundation Recommendations
The mat foundation may be proportioned using an average bearing value of (2,500) pounds per
square foot, and the maximum allowable bearing capacity should not exceed (4,000) pounds
per square foot. The mat foundation structural design should be done by the project structural
engineer.
The coefficient of static vertical subgrade reaction is defined as:
Granular Soil:
𝐾 𝐾∗ 𝑚 0.5
1.5𝑚 ∗ 𝐵 1
2𝐵
Kb: Coefficient of static vertical subgrade reaction
Kv1: Normalized subgrade reaction coefficient (namely, corresponding to a 1 foot square bearing
plate), estimated at 125 pounds per cubic inch (pci) for engineered fill subgrade. It should
be noted that this value applies to dry or moist materials, with groundwater at a depth of at least
1.5B below the base of the footing. If groundwater is at the base of the footing, use Kv1/2 to
calculate settlements.
B: Width of the mat foundation measured in feet.
m: Ratio of length over width of a rectangular footing.
The mat foundation structural design should be done by the project structural engineer.
August 23, 2022 Page 14
Project 22-02182
Lateral loads may be resisted by friction at the base of the conventional foundations and by
passive resistance within the compacted fill. A coefficient of friction of (0.4) may be used
between the foundations and the compacted fill. The passive resistance may be assumed to act
as a fluid with a density of (300) pounds per cubic foot.
It is recommended that a vapor retarder/waterproofing be placed below the concrete slab on
grade. Vapor/moisture transmission through slabs does occur and can impact various
components of the structure.
Vapor retarder/waterproofing design and inspection of installation is not the responsibility of the
geotechnical engineer (most often the responsibility of the architect). GeoConcepts, Inc. does
not practice in the field of water and moisture vapor transmission evaluation/mitigation.
Therefore, we recommend that a qualified person/firm be engaged/consulted to evaluate the
general and specific water and moisture vapor transmission paths and any impact on the
proposed development. This person/firm should provide recommendations for mitigation of
potential adverse impact of water and moisture vapor transmission on various components of
the structure as deemed necessary. The actual waterproofing design shall be provided by the
architect, structural engineer or contractor with experience in waterproofing
In order to promote good building practices and alert the rest of the design/construction team of
some of the appropriate standards and expert recommendations pertaining to vapor
barriers/retarders, the waterproofing designer should consider recommending and citing specific
performance characteristics. The following paragraph includes some of the standards and
expert recommendations and should be considered for use waterproofing designer own
recommendations:
Vapor barrier shall consist of a minimum 15 mil extruded polyolefin plastic (no recycled content
or woven materials permitted). Permeance as tested before and after mandatory conditions
(ASTM E 1745 Section 7.1 and Sub-Paragraph 7.1.1-7.1.5): less than 0.01 perms [grains/(ft2-hr-
inHg)] and comply with the ASTM E 1745 Class A requirements. Install vapor barrier according
to ASTM E1643, including proper perimeter seal. Basis of design: Stego Wrap Vapor Barrier 15
mil and Stego Crete Claw Tape (perimeter seal tape). Approved Alternatives: Vaporguard by
Reef Industries, Sundance 15 mil Vapor Barrier by Sundance Inc.
Settlement
Settlement of the proposed three story at grade apartment building will occur. Settlement of
(1/8) to (1/4) inches between walls, within 20 feet or less, of each other, and under similar
loading conditions, are considered normal. Total settlement on the order of (1/2) inches should
be anticipated.
Expansive Soils
Expansive soils were not encountered on the subject property. Expansive soils can be a
problem, as variation in moisture content will cause a volume change in the soil. Expansive
soils heave when moisture is introduced and contract as they dry. During inclement weather
August 23, 2022 Page 15
Project 22-02182
and/or excessive landscape watering, moisture infiltrates the soil and causes the soil to heave
(expansion). When drying occurs the soils will shrink (contraction).
Repeated cycles of expansion and contraction of soils can cause pavement, concrete slabs on
grade and foundations to crack. This movement can also result in misalignment of doors and
windows. To reduce the effect of expansive soils, foundation systems are usually deepened
and/or provided with additional reinforcement design by the structural engineer. Planning of
yard improvements should take into consideration maintaining uniform moisture conditions
around structures. Soils should be kept moist, but water should not be allowed to pond. These
designs are intended to reduce, but will not eliminate deflection and cracking and do not
guarantee or warrant that cracking will not occur.
Excavations
Excavations ranging in vertical height up to six feet will be required for the remedial grading.
Conventional excavation equipment may be used to make these excavations. Excavations
should expose alluvium. These soils are suitable for vertical excavations up to five feet. This
should be verified by the project geotechnical engineer during construction so that modifications
can be made if variations in the soil occur.
Excavations located along the property line may be made by the slot-cutting method to six feet
high. This method employs the use of the earth as a buttress and allows the excavation to
proceed in phases. The initial excavation is made at a slope of 1:1 (h:v). Slots are cut, using
the ABC method, in which all slots are of the same width. The initial slot "A" is cut eight feet in
width, leaving the "B" and "C" slots to buttress the excavation. The "A" slot is backfilled; the
same procedure is used for the "B" slots; then the "C" slots.
All excavations should be stabilized within 10 days of initial excavation. If this time is exceeded,
the project geotechnical engineer must be notified, and modifications, such as shoring or slope
trimming may be required. Water should not be allowed to pond on top of the excavation, nor to
flow toward it. All excavations should be protected from inclement weather. This is required to
keep the surface of the open excavation from becoming saturated during rainfall. Saturation of
the excavation may result in a relaxation of the soils which may result in failures. Excavations
should be kept moist, not saturated, to reduce the potential for raveling and sloughing during
construction. No vehicular surcharge should be allowed within three feet (3') of the top of cut.
Excavations Maintenance – Erosion Control
The following recommendations should be considered a part of the excavation/erosion control
plan for the subject site and are intended to supplement, but not supersede nor limit the erosion
control plans produced by the Project Civil Engineer and/or Qualified SWPPP Developer.
These recommendations should be implemented during periods required by the Building Code
(typically between the months of October and April) or at any time of the year prior to a
predicted rain event. Consideration should also be given to potential local sources of
water/runoff such as existing drainage pipes or irrigation systems that remain in operation during
construction activities.
August 23, 2022 Page 16
Project 22-02182
Open Excavations:
All open excavations shall be protected from inclement weather, including areas above and at
the toe of the excavation. This is required to keep the excavations from becoming saturated.
Saturation of the excavation may result in a relaxation of the soils which may result in failures.
Water/runoff should be diverted away from the excavation and not be allowed to flow over the
excavation in a concentrated manner.
Open Trenches/Foundation Excavations:
No water should be allowed to pond adjacent to or flow into open trenches. All open trenches
shall be covered with plastic sheeting that is anchored with sandbags. Areas around the
trenches should be sloped away from the trenches to prevent water runoff from flowing into or
ponding adjacent to the trenches.
After the inclement weather has ceased, the excavations shall be reviewed by the project
geotechnical engineer and geologist for safety prior to recommencement of work. Foundation
excavations that remain open during inclement weather shall be reviewed by the project
geotechnical engineer and geologist prior to the placement of steel and concrete to ensure that
proper embedment and contact with the bearing material have been maintained.
Grading In Progress:
During the inclement time of the year, or during periods prior to the onset of rain, all fill that has
been spread and is awaiting compaction shall be compacted before stopping work for the day or
before stopping work because of inclement weather. These fills, once compacted, shall have
the surface sloped to drain to one area where water may be removed.
Additionally, it is suggested that all stock-piled fill materials be covered with plastic sheeting.
This action will reduce the potential for the moisture content of the fill from becoming too high for
compaction. If the fill stockpile is not covered during inclement weather, then aerating the fill to
reduce the moisture content would be required. This action is generally very time consuming
and may result in construction delays.
Work may recommence, after the rain event, once the site has been reviewed by the project
geotechnical engineer.
Slabs on Grade
Slabs on grade should be reinforced with minimum #4 reinforcing bars, placed at (16) inches on
center each way and supported on compacted fill. Provisions for cracks should be incorporated
into the design and construction of the foundation system, slabs, and proposed floor coverings.
Concrete slabs should have sufficient control joints spaced at a maximum of approximately 8
feet.
It is recommended that a vapor retarder/waterproofing be placed below the concrete slab on
grade. Vapor/moisture transmission through slabs does occur and can impact various
components of the structure.
August 23, 2022 Page 17
Project 22-02182
Vapor retarder/waterproofing design and inspection of installation is not the responsibility of the
geotechnical engineer (most often the responsibility of the architect). GeoConcepts, Inc. does
not practice in the field of water and moisture vapor transmission evaluation/mitigation.
Therefore, we recommend that a qualified person/firm be engaged/consulted to evaluate the
general and specific water and moisture vapor transmission paths and any impact on the
proposed development. This person/firm should provide recommendations for mitigation of
potential adverse impact of water and moisture vapor transmission on various components of
the structure as deemed necessary. The actual waterproofing design shall be provided by the
architect, structural engineer or contractor with experience in waterproofing
In order to promote good building practices and alert the rest of the design/construction team of
some of the appropriate standards and expert recommendations pertaining to vapor
barriers/retarders, the waterproofing designer should consider recommending and citing specific
performance characteristics. The following paragraph includes some of the standards and
expert recommendations and should be considered for use waterproofing designer own
recommendations:
Vapor barrier shall consist of a minimum 15 mil extruded polyolefin plastic (no recycled content
or woven materials permitted). Permeance as tested before and after mandatory conditions
(ASTM E 1745 Section 7.1 and Sub-Paragraph 7.1.1-7.1.5): less than 0.01 perms [grains/(ft2-hr-
inHg)] and comply with the ASTM E 1745 Class A requirements. Install vapor barrier according
to ASTM E1643, including proper perimeter seal. Basis of design: Stego Wrap Vapor Barrier 15
mil and Stego Crete Claw Tape (perimeter seal tape). Approved Alternatives: Vaporguard by
Reef Industries, Sundance 15 mil Vapor Barrier by Sundance Inc.
Decking
Exterior decking slabs on grade should be reinforced with minimum #4 reinforcing bars, placed
at (16) inches on center each way and supported on compacted fill. Provisions for cracks
should be incorporated into the design and construction of the decking. Concrete slabs should
have sufficient control joints spaced at a maximum of approximately 8 feet. Decking planned
adjacent to lawns, planters or adjacent to descending slopes should be provided with a 12-inch
thickened edge. The deck reinforcement should be bent down into the edge. These
recommendations are considered minimums unless superseded by the project structural
engineer.
REVIEWS
Plan Review and Plan Notes
The final grading, building, and/or structural plans shall be reviewed and approved by the
consultants to ensure that all recommendations are incorporated into the design or shown as
notes on the plan.
The final plans should reflect the following:
1. The Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation by GeoConcepts, Inc. is a part of
the plans.
August 23, 2022 Page 18
Project 22-02182
2. Plans must be reviewed and signed by GeoConcepts, Inc.
3. The project geotechnical engineer must review all grading.
4. The project geotechnical engineer shall review all foundations.
Construction Review
Reviews will be required to verify all geotechnical work. It is required that all footing
excavations, seepage pits, and grading be reviewed by this office. This office should be notified
at least two working days in advance of any field reviews so that staff personnel may be made
available.
The property owner should take an active role in project safety by assigning responsibility and
authority to individuals qualified in appropriate construction safety principles and practices.
Generally, site safety should be assigned to the general contractor or construction manager that
is in control of the site and has the required expertise, which includes but not limited to
construction means, methods and safety precautions.
LIMITATIONS
General
This report is intended to be used only in its entirety. No portion or section of the report, by
itself, is designed to completely represent any aspect of the project described herein. If any
reader requires additional information or has questions regarding this report, GeoConcepts, Inc.
should be contacted.
Subsurface conditions were interpreted on the basis of our field explorations and past
experience. Although, between exploratory excavations, subsurface earth materials may vary in
type, strength and many other properties from those interpreted. The findings, conclusions and
recommendations presented herein are for the soil conditions encountered in the specific
locations. Earth materials and conditions immediately adjacent to, or beneath those observed
may have different characteristics, such as, earth type, physical properties and strength. Other
soil conditions due to non-uniformity of the soil conditions or manmade alterations may be
revealed during construction. If subsurface conditions differ from those encountered in the
described exploration, this office should be advised immediately so that further
recommendations may be made if required. If it is desired to minimize the possibility of such
changes, additional explorations and testing can/should be performed.
Findings, conclusions and recommendations presented herein are based on experience and
background. Therefore, findings, conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions
and are not meant to indicate a control of nature.
This preliminary report provides information regarding the findings on the subject property. It is
not designed to provide a guarantee that the site will be free of hazards in the future, such as
but not limited to, landslides, slippage, liquefaction, expansive soils, differential settlement,
debris flows, seepage, concentrated drainage or flooding. It may not be possible to eliminate all
hazards, but homeowners must maintain their property and improve deficiencies to minimize
these hazards.
August 23, 2022 Page 19
Project 22-02182
This report may not be copied. If you wish to purchase additional copies, you may order
them from this office.
CONSTRUCTION NOTICE
Construction can be challenging. GeoConcepts, Inc. has provided this report to advise you of
the general site conditions, geotechnical feasibility of the proposed project, and overall site
stability. It must be understood that the professional opinions provided herein are based upon
subsurface data, laboratory testing, analyses, and interpretation thereof. Recommendations
contained herein are based upon surface reconnaissance and minimum subsurface explorations
deemed suitable by your consultants.
Although quantities for foundation concrete and steel may be estimated based on the findings
provided in this report, provision should be made for possible changes in quantities during
construction. If it is desired to minimize the possibility of such changes, additional exploration
and testing should be considered. However, you must be aware that depths and magnitudes
will most likely vary between explorations given in the report.
We appreciate the opportunity of serving you on this project. If you have any questions
concerning this report, please contact the undersigned.
Respectfully submitted,
GEOCONCEPTS, INC.
1
Raffi Dermendjian
Project Engineer
PE C. 88261
RD/HU: 22-02182-1
Distribution: (1) Addressee
August 23, 2022 Page 20
Project 22-02182
APPENDIX I
SITE INFORMATION
Location Map
Groundwater Map
USGS Fault Map
Earthquake Zone Map
Plot Map
Field Exploration
Borings 1 through 4
August 23, 2022 Page 21
Project 22-02182
LOCATION MAP
Reference: Los Angeles County of Public Works, GIS-Net3 Scale: As Shown
August 23, 2022 Page 22
Project 22-02182
GROUNDWATER MAP
Reference: State of California Seismic Hazard Report, Fullerton Quadrangle
Scale: As Shown
August 23, 2022 Page 23
Project 22-02182
August 23, 2022 Page 24
Project 22-02182
EARTHQUAKE ZONE MAP
Reference: California Geological Survey, Seismic Hazard Map
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/DataViewer/index.html
Scale: As
Shown
August 23, 2022 Page 25
Project 22-02182
August 23, 2022 Page 26
Project 22-02182
Page Intentionally Left Blank
August 23, 2022 Page 27
Project 22-02182
August 23, 2022 Page 28
Project 22-02182
August 23, 2022 Page 29
Project 22-02182
August 23, 2022 Page 30
Project 22-02182
August 23, 2022 Page 31
Project 22-02182
APPENDIX II
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory Procedures
Laboratory Recapitulation 1
Laboratory Recapitulation 2
Figures S.1 through S.3
Figures C.1 through C.11
Figures SV.1 through SV.4
Figure ATT. 1
August 23, 2022 Page 32
Project 22-02182
LABORATORY PROCEDURES
Laboratory testing was performed on samples obtained as outlined in the Field Exploration
section of this report. All samples were sent to the laboratory for examination, testing in general
conformance to specified test methods, and classification, using the Unified Soil Classification
System and group symbol.
Moisture and Density Tests
The dry unit weight and moisture content of the undisturbed samples were determined. The
results are tabulated in the Laboratory Recapitulation - Table 1.
Shear Tests
Direct single-shear tests were performed with a direct shear machine. The desired normal load
is applied to the specimen and allowed to come to equilibrium. The rate of deflection on the
sample is approximately 0.005 inches per minute. The samples are tested at higher and/or
lower normal loads in order to determine the angle of internal friction and the cohesion. The
results are plotted on the Shear Test Diagrams and the results tabulated in the Laboratory
Recapitulation - Table 1.
Consolidation
Consolidation tests were performed on samples, within the brass ring, to predict the soils
behavior under a specific load. Porous stones are placed in contact with top and bottom of the
samples to permit to allow the addition or release of water. Loads are applied in several
increments and the results are recorded at selected time intervals. Samples are tested at field
and increased moisture content. The results are plotted on the Consolidation Test Curve and
the load at which the water is added as noted on the drawing.
Grain Size Analysis
Sieve
A group of sieves is assembled with a solid collecting pan at the bottom. The sample is placed
in top sieve. The assembly is placed in the sieve shaker. Upon completion of the sieving
operation the weight of the material retained on each is determined.
Atterbergs Limits
Liquid Limit
A sample at a specified moisture content is placed in the liquid limit device. The cup drops
required to close a groove in the sample is recorded. Three samples at varying moisture
contents are tested.
Plastic Limit
A sample at a specified moisture content is rolled on a glass plate. The moisture content is
varied until the sample crumbles at a diameter of 1/8".
August 23, 2022 Page 33
Project 22-02182
pH (CTM 643)
A sample of dry soil and distilled water are placed in a flask and allowed to stand for
approximately an hour to stabilize. The pH is measured using a pH meter that has been
compensated for temperature. The results are tabulated in the Laboratory Recapitulation - Table
2.
Minimum Resistivity (CTM 643)
The electrical resistivity of each soil specimen is conducted in a two-stage process using the soil
box method. The first stage measures the resistivity of the soil in its as-received condition and
the second stage records the value after saturation with distilled water. The results are
tabulated in the Laboratory Recapitulation - Table 2.
Chloride Content (CTM 422)
A sample of dry soil is mixed with distilled water and allowed to stand overnight. The top aliquot
of the sample is mixed with chloride indicator and titrated over silver nitrate solution. The
chloride content is determined by the difference of the volumes required to complete titration.
The results are tabulated in the Laboratory Recapitulation - Table 2.
Sulfate Content (CTM 417)
A sample of dry soil is mixed with distilled water and allowed to stand overnight. The top aliquot
is mixed with distilled water and a conditioning agent. The solution is then placed in a
photometer and the value recorded. The process is repeated with the addition of barium
chloride. The sulfate content is determined by the difference of the photometer readings. The
results are tabulated in the Laboratory Recapitulation - Table 2.
August 23, 2022 Page 34
Project 22-02182
LABORATORY RECAPITULATION 1
PROJECT: 1600 W. Commonwealth Ave
PROJECT NO.: 22‐02182
Exploration Depth
(ft)
Material Dry Density In Situ
(P.C.F.)
Moisture Content
(%)
Cohesion
(K.S.F.)
Friction Angle
(degree)
B‐1 1 Qal
B‐1 2.5 Qal 101.8 13.3 0.15 28
B‐1 5 Qal
B‐1 7.5 Qal 104.6 16.4
B‐1 10 Qal
B‐1 12.5 Qal 107.9 18.4
B‐1 15 Qal
B‐1 17.5 Qal 113.8 15.9
B‐1 20 Qal
B‐1 22.5 Qal 112.4 16.9
B‐1 25 Qal
B‐1 27.5 Qal 108.4 18.2
B‐1 30 Qal
B‐1 32.5 Qal 111.8 16.9
B‐1 35 Qal
B‐1 37.5 Qal 112.2 18.1
B‐1 40 Qal
B‐1 42.5 Qal 108.1 15.2
B‐1 45 Qal
B‐1 47.5 Qal 120.1 14.6
B‐1 50 Qal
B‐2 2 Qal
B‐2 2.5 Qal
B‐2 5 Qal 107.6 9.5 0.15 29
B‐2 7.5 Qal
B‐2 10 Qal 99.6 20.7
B‐2 12.5 Qal
B‐2 15 Qal 117.6 15.2
B‐2 17.5 Qal
B‐2 20 Qal 105.4 19.3
B‐2 22.5 Qal
B‐2 25 Qal 104.6 21.1
B‐2 27.5 Qal
B‐2 30 Qal 108.3 16.9
B‐2 32.5 Qal
B‐2 35 Qal 113.0 16.4
B‐2 40 Qal
B‐2 45 Qal 110.1 14.1
August 23, 2022 Page 35
Project 22-02182
B‐2 50 Qal
B‐3 3 Qal
B‐3 5 Qal 104 16.9 0.15 28
B‐3 10 Qal 90.2 14.1
B‐3 15 Qal 109.4 14.6
B‐3 20 Qal 101.1 22
B‐3 25 Qal 101.7 24.2
B‐3 30 Qal 104.3 21.3
B‐4 5 Qal 101.3 23.5
B‐4 10 Qal 102.2 18.9
B‐4 15 Qal 107.2 6.2
B‐4 20 Qal 110.1 15.1
B‐4 25 Qal 117.3 4.4
B‐4 30 Qal 104.1 12
LABORATORY RECAPITULATION 2
PROJECT: 1600 W. Commonwealth Ave
PROJECT NO.: 22‐02182
Exploration Depth
(ft)
pH As‐Is Soil Resistivity
(ohm‐cm)
Minimum Soil Resistivity
(ohm‐cm)
Chloride
(%)
Sulphate
(%)
B‐1 1 7.49 820000 19000 0.004 0.024
B‐3 3 7.42 32000 2900 0.005 0.001
August 23, 2022 Page 36
Project 22-02182
August 23, 2022 Page 37
Project 22-02182
August 23, 2022 Page 38
Project 22-02182
August 23, 2022 Page 39
Project 22-02182
August 23, 2022 Page 40
Project 22-02182
August 23, 2022 Page 41
Project 22-02182
August 23, 2022 Page 42
Project 22-02182
August 23, 2022 Page 43
Project 22-02182
August 23, 2022 Page 44
Project 22-02182
August 23, 2022 Page 45
Project 22-02182
August 23, 2022 Page 46
Project 22-02182
August 23, 2022 Page 47
Project 22-02182
August 23, 2022 Page 48
Project 22-02182
August 23, 2022 Page 49
Project 22-02182
August 23, 2022 Page 50
Project 22-02182
August 23, 2022 Page 51
Project 22-02182
August 23, 2022 Page 52
Project 22-02182
August 23, 2022 Page 53
Project 22-02182
August 23, 2022 Page 54
Project 22-02182
August 23, 2022 Page 55
Project 22-02182
APPENDIX III
ANALYSES
Lateral Design
Liquefaction
Seismic Evaluation
August 23, 2022 Page 56
Project 22-02182
Maximum Vertical Cut Height
August 23, 2022 Page 57
Project 22-02182
Slot Cuts (Six Feet High with Level Backslope)
August 23, 2022 Page 58
Project 22-02182
Liq
u
e
f
y
P
r
o
C
i
v
i
l
T
e
c
h
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
U
S
A
w
w
w
.
c
i
v
i
l
t
e
c
h
.
c
o
m
CivilTech Corporation
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
1600 W Commonwealth Ave
22-02182 Plate A-1
Hole No.=B-1 Water Depth=20 ft Magnitude=7.3
Acceleration=0.734g
(ft)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
7 115 NoLq
115 NoLq
7 52
122
11 NoLq
128 NoLq
23 14
132
9 NoLq
131 NoLq
21 30
128
28 14
131 48
28
133
27 54
125
27
50 138 4
50
Raw Unit FinesSPT Weight %Shear Stress Ratio
CRR CSR fs1
Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential
0 2
Factor of Safety
0 51
Settlement
Saturated
Unsaturat.
S = 2.99 in.
0 (in.) 10
fs1=1.30
fs2=1
fs2
August 23, 2022 Page 59
Project 22-02182
*******************************************************************************************************
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS CALCULATION DETAILS
Copyright by CivilTech Software
www.civiltech.com
*******************************************************************************************************
Font: Courier New, Regular, Size 8 is recommended for this report.
Licensed to , 8/18/2022 3:31:29 PM
Input File Name: Z:\OUR DOCUMENTS\Liquefaction Analysis\22-02182-1 B-1.liq
Title: 1600 W Commonwealth Ave
Subtitle: 22-02182
Input Data:
Surface Elev.=
Hole No.=B-1
Depth of Hole=50.00 ft
Water Table during Earthquake= 20.00 ft
Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 45.00 ft
Max. Acceleration=0.73 g
Earthquake Magnitude=7.30
No-Liquefiable Soils: CL, OL are Non-Liq. Soil
1. SPT or BPT Calculation.
2. Settlement Analysis Method: Ishihara / Yoshimine
3. Fines Correction for Liquefaction: Stark/Olson et al.*
4. Fine Correction for Settlement: During Liquefaction*
5. Settlement Calculation in: All zones*
6. Hammer Energy Ratio, Ce = 1.25
7. Borehole Diameter, Cb= 1
8. Sampling Method, Cs= 1.2
9. User request factor of safety (apply to CSR) , User= 1.3
Plot two CSR (fs1=User, fs2=1)
10. Average two input data between two Depths: Yes*
* Recommended Options
In-Situ Test Data:
Depth SPT Gamma Fines
ft pcf %
__________________________________
0.00 7.00 115.00 NoLiq
2.50 7.00 115.00 NoLiq
5.00 7.00 115.00 52.00
7.50 7.00 122.00 52.00
10.00 11.00 122.00 NoLiq
12.50 11.00 128.00 NoLiq
15.00 23.00 128.00 14.00
17.50 23.00 132.00 14.00
20.00 9.00 132.00 NoLiq
22.50 9.00 131.00 NoLiq
25.00 21.00 131.00 30.00
27.50 21.00 128.00 30.00
30.00 28.00 128.00 14.00
32.50 28.00 131.00 48.00
35.00 28.00 131.00 48.00
37.50 28.00 133.00 48.00
40.00 27.00 133.00 54.00
42.50 27.00 125.00 54.00
45.00 27.00 125.00 54.00
47.50 50.00 138.00 4.00
50.00 50.00 138.00 4.00
__________________________________
Output Results:
Calculation segment, dz=0.050 ft
User defined Print Interval, dp=2.00 ft
Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA), a_max = 0.73g
CSR Calculation:
Depth gamma sigma gamma' sigma' rd mZ a(z) CSR x fs1 =CSRfs
ft pcf atm pcf atm g g
August 23, 2022 Page 60
Project 22-02182
_____________________________________________________________________________________
0.00 115.00 0.000 115.00 0.000 1.00 0.000 0.734 0.48 1.30 0.62
2.00 115.00 0.109 115.00 0.109 1.00 0.000 0.734 0.47 1.30 0.62
4.00 115.00 0.217 115.00 0.217 0.99 0.000 0.734 0.47 1.30 0.61
6.00 117.80 0.327 117.80 0.327 0.99 0.000 0.734 0.47 1.30 0.61
8.00 122.00 0.440 122.00 0.440 0.98 0.000 0.734 0.47 1.30 0.61
10.00 122.00 0.556 122.00 0.556 0.98 0.000 0.734 0.47 1.30 0.61
12.00 126.80 0.673 126.80 0.673 0.97 0.000 0.734 0.46 1.30 0.60
14.00 128.00 0.794 128.00 0.794 0.97 0.000 0.734 0.46 1.30 0.60
16.00 129.60 0.915 129.60 0.915 0.96 0.000 0.734 0.46 1.30 0.60
18.00 132.00 1.039 132.00 1.039 0.96 0.000 0.734 0.46 1.30 0.59
20.00 132.00 1.164 132.00 1.164 0.95 0.000 0.734 0.45 1.30 0.59
22.00 131.20 1.288 68.80 1.231 0.95 0.000 0.734 0.47 1.30 0.62
24.00 131.00 1.412 68.60 1.296 0.94 0.000 0.734 0.49 1.30 0.64
26.00 129.80 1.536 67.40 1.360 0.94 0.000 0.734 0.51 1.30 0.66
28.00 128.00 1.657 65.60 1.423 0.93 0.000 0.734 0.52 1.30 0.68
30.00 128.00 1.778 65.60 1.485 0.93 0.000 0.734 0.53 1.30 0.69
32.00 130.40 1.900 68.00 1.548 0.91 0.000 0.734 0.54 1.30 0.70
34.00 131.00 2.024 68.60 1.613 0.90 0.000 0.734 0.54 1.30 0.70
36.00 131.80 2.148 69.40 1.678 0.88 0.000 0.734 0.54 1.30 0.70
38.00 133.00 2.273 70.60 1.744 0.86 0.000 0.734 0.54 1.30 0.70
40.00 133.00 2.399 70.60 1.811 0.85 0.000 0.734 0.54 1.30 0.70
42.00 126.60 2.522 64.20 1.875 0.83 0.000 0.734 0.53 1.30 0.69
44.00 125.00 2.640 62.60 1.934 0.82 0.000 0.734 0.53 1.30 0.69
46.00 130.20 2.760 67.80 1.994 0.80 0.000 0.734 0.53 1.30 0.69
48.00 138.00 2.887 75.60 2.063 0.78 0.000 0.734 0.52 1.30 0.68
50.00 138.00 3.018 75.60 2.134 0.77 0.000 0.734 0.52 1.30 0.67
_____________________________________________________________________________________
CSR is based on water table at 20.00 during earthquake
CRR Calculation from SPT or BPT data:
Depth SPT Cebs Cr sigma' Cn (N1)60 Fines d(N1)60 (N1)60f CRR7.5
ft atm %
_____________________________________________________________________________________
0.00 7.00 1.50 0.75 0.000 1.70 13.39 NoLiq 7.20 20.59 0.22
2.00 7.00 1.50 0.75 0.109 1.70 13.39 NoLiq 7.20 20.59 0.22
4.00 7.00 1.50 0.75 0.217 1.70 13.39 71.60 7.20 20.59 0.22
6.00 7.00 1.50 0.75 0.327 1.70 13.39 52.00 7.20 20.59 0.22
8.00 7.80 1.50 0.75 0.440 1.51 13.22 61.80 7.20 20.42 0.22
10.00 11.00 1.50 0.85 0.556 1.34 18.81 NoLiq 7.20 26.01 0.30
12.00 11.00 1.50 0.85 0.673 1.22 17.09 NoLiq 7.20 24.29 0.27
14.00 18.20 1.50 0.85 0.794 1.12 26.04 48.80 7.20 33.24 2.00
16.00 23.00 1.50 0.95 0.915 1.05 34.26 14.00 2.16 36.42 2.00
18.00 20.20 1.50 0.95 1.039 0.98 28.24 31.40 6.34 34.57 2.00
20.00 9.00 1.50 0.95 1.164 0.93 11.89 NoLiq 7.20 19.09 0.21
22.00 9.00 1.50 0.95 1.288 0.88 11.30 NoLiq 7.20 18.50 0.20
24.00 16.20 1.50 0.95 1.412 0.84 19.43 58.40 7.20 26.63 0.31
26.00 21.00 1.50 0.95 1.536 0.81 24.15 30.00 6.00 30.15 2.00
28.00 22.40 1.50 1.00 1.657 0.78 26.10 26.80 5.23 31.33 2.00
30.00 28.00 1.50 1.00 1.778 0.75 31.49 14.00 2.16 33.65 2.00
32.00 28.00 1.50 1.00 1.900 0.73 30.47 41.20 7.20 37.67 2.00
34.00 28.00 1.50 1.00 2.024 0.70 29.52 48.00 7.20 36.72 2.00
36.00 28.00 1.50 1.00 2.148 0.68 28.66 48.00 7.20 35.86 2.00
38.00 27.80 1.50 1.00 2.273 0.66 27.66 49.20 7.20 34.86 2.00
40.00 27.00 1.50 1.00 2.399 0.65 26.15 54.00 7.20 33.35 2.00
42.00 27.00 1.50 1.00 2.522 0.63 25.50 54.00 7.20 32.70 2.00
44.00 27.00 1.50 1.00 2.640 0.62 24.92 54.00 7.20 32.12 2.00
46.00 36.20 1.50 1.00 2.732 0.61 32.85 34.01 6.96 39.81 2.00
48.00 50.00 1.50 1.00 2.800 0.60 44.82 4.00 0.00 44.82 2.00
50.00 50.00 1.50 1.00 2.872 0.59 44.26 4.00 0.00 44.26 2.00
_____________________________________________________________________________________
CRR is based on water table at 45.00 during In-Situ Testing
Factor of Safety, - Earthquake Magnitude= 7.30:
Depth sigC' CRR7.5 x Ksig =CRRv x MSF =CRRm CSRfs F.S.=CRRm/CSRfs
ft atm
________________________________________________________________________
0.00 0.00 0.22 1.00 0.22 1.07 2.00 0.62 5.00 ^
2.00 0.07 0.22 1.00 0.22 1.07 2.00 0.62 5.00 ^
4.00 0.14 0.22 1.00 0.22 1.07 0.24 0.61 5.00
6.00 0.21 0.22 1.00 0.22 1.07 0.24 0.61 5.00
8.00 0.29 0.22 1.00 0.22 1.07 0.24 0.61 5.00
10.00 0.36 0.30 1.00 0.30 1.07 2.00 0.61 5.00 ^
August 23, 2022 Page 61
Project 22-02182
12.00 0.44 0.27 1.00 0.27 1.07 2.00 0.60 5.00 ^
14.00 0.52 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.07 2.14 0.60 5.00
16.00 0.60 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.07 2.14 0.60 5.00
18.00 0.68 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.07 2.14 0.59 5.00
20.00 0.76 0.21 1.00 0.21 1.07 0.22 0.59 5.00
22.00 0.84 0.20 1.00 0.20 1.07 2.00 0.62 5.00 ^
24.00 0.92 0.31 1.00 0.31 1.07 0.33 0.64 0.52 *
26.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.07 2.14 0.66 3.26
28.00 1.08 2.00 0.99 1.99 1.07 2.13 0.68 3.15
30.00 1.16 2.00 0.98 1.96 1.07 2.10 0.69 3.05
32.00 1.24 2.00 0.97 1.94 1.07 2.08 0.70 2.99
34.00 1.32 2.00 0.96 1.92 1.07 2.05 0.70 2.94
36.00 1.40 2.00 0.95 1.89 1.07 2.03 0.70 2.90
38.00 1.48 2.00 0.94 1.87 1.07 2.00 0.70 2.87
40.00 1.56 2.00 0.92 1.85 1.07 1.98 0.70 2.84
42.00 1.64 2.00 0.91 1.83 1.07 1.96 0.69 2.82
44.00 1.72 2.00 0.90 1.81 1.07 1.94 0.69 2.81
46.00 1.78 2.00 0.90 1.80 1.07 1.92 0.69 2.80
48.00 1.82 2.00 0.89 1.78 1.07 1.91 0.68 2.81
50.00 1.87 2.00 0.89 1.77 1.07 1.90 0.67 2.83
________________________________________________________________________
* F.S.<1: Liquefaction Potential Zone. (If above water table: F.S.=5)
^ No-liquefiable Soils or above Water Table.
(F.S. is limited to 5, CRR is limited to 2, CSR is limited to 2)
CPT convert to SPT for Settlement Analysis:
Fines Correction for Settlement Analysis:
Depth Ic qc/N60 qc1 (N1)60 Fines d(N1)60 (N1)60s
ft atm %
________________________________________________________________
0.00 - - - 20.59 NoLiq 0.00 20.59
2.00 - - - 20.59 NoLiq 0.00 20.59
4.00 - - - 20.59 71.60 0.00 20.59
6.00 - - - 20.59 52.00 0.00 20.59
8.00 - - - 20.42 61.80 0.00 20.42
10.00 - - - 26.01 NoLiq 0.00 26.01
12.00 - - - 24.29 NoLiq 0.00 24.29
14.00 - - - 33.24 48.80 0.00 33.24
16.00 - - - 36.42 14.00 0.00 36.42
18.00 - - - 34.57 31.40 0.00 34.57
20.00 - - - 19.09 NoLiq 0.00 19.09
22.00 - - - 18.50 NoLiq 0.00 18.50
24.00 - - - 26.63 58.40 0.00 26.63
26.00 - - - 30.15 30.00 0.00 30.15
28.00 - - - 31.33 26.80 0.00 31.33
30.00 - - - 33.65 14.00 0.00 33.65
32.00 - - - 37.67 41.20 0.00 37.67
34.00 - - - 36.72 48.00 0.00 36.72
36.00 - - - 35.86 48.00 0.00 35.86
38.00 - - - 34.86 49.20 0.00 34.86
40.00 - - - 33.35 54.00 0.00 33.35
42.00 - - - 32.70 54.00 0.00 32.70
44.00 - - - 32.12 54.00 0.00 32.12
46.00 - - - 39.81 34.01 0.00 39.81
48.00 - - - 44.82 4.00 0.00 44.82
50.00 - - - 44.26 4.00 0.00 44.26
________________________________________________________________
(N1)60s has been fines corrected in liquefaction analysis, therefore d(N1)60=0.
Fines=NoLiq means the soils are not liquefiable.
Settlement of Saturated Sands:
Settlement Analysis Method: Ishihara / Yoshimine
Depth CSRsf / MSF* =CSRm F.S. Fines (N1)60s Dr ec dsz dsp S
ft % % % in. in. in.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
49.95 0.67 1.00 0.67 2.82 4.00 44.27 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000
48.00 0.68 1.00 0.68 2.81 4.00 44.82 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000
46.00 0.69 1.00 0.69 2.80 34.01 39.81 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000
44.00 0.69 1.00 0.69 2.81 54.00 32.12 95.07 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000
42.00 0.69 1.00 0.69 2.82 54.00 32.70 96.51 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000
40.00 0.70 1.00 0.70 2.84 54.00 33.35 98.17 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000
August 23, 2022 Page 62
Project 22-02182
38.00 0.70 1.00 0.70 2.87 49.20 34.86 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000
36.00 0.70 1.00 0.70 2.90 48.00 35.86 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000
34.00 0.70 1.00 0.70 2.94 48.00 36.72 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000
32.00 0.70 1.00 0.70 2.99 41.20 37.67 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000
30.00 0.69 1.00 0.69 3.05 14.00 33.65 98.97 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000
28.00 0.68 1.00 0.68 3.15 26.80 31.33 93.14 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000
26.00 0.66 1.00 0.66 3.26 30.00 30.15 90.39 0.000 0.0E0 0.219 0.219
24.00 0.64 1.00 0.64 0.52 58.40 26.63 82.90 1.590 9.5E-3 0.108 0.327
22.00 0.62 1.00 0.62 5.00 NoLiq 18.50 67.83 0.000 0.0E0 0.342 0.669
20.05 0.59 1.00 0.59 5.00 NoLiq 19.07 68.86 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.669
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Settlement of Saturated Sands=0.669 in.
qc1 and (N1)60 is after fines correction in liquefaction analysis
dsz is per each segment, dz=0.05 ft
dsp is per each print interval, dp=2.00 ft
S is cumulated settlement at this depth
Settlement of Unsaturated Sands:
Depth sigma' sigC' (N1)60s CSRsf Gmax g*Ge/Gm g_eff ec7.5 Cec ec dsz dsp S
ft atm atm atm % % in. in.
in.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________
20.00 1.16 0.76 19.09 0.59 1038.59 6.6E-4 0.7486 0.7833 1.01 0.7900 0.00E0 0.000
0.000
18.00 1.04 0.68 34.57 0.59 1196.01 5.2E-4 1.0000 0.4465 1.01 0.4503 5.40E-3 0.317
0.317
16.00 0.92 0.60 36.42 0.60 1142.06 4.8E-4 0.7778 0.3116 1.01 0.3143 3.77E-3 0.195
0.512
14.00 0.79 0.52 33.24 0.60 1031.86 4.6E-4 0.6217 0.2988 1.01 0.3013 3.62E-3 0.127
0.639
12.00 0.67 0.44 24.29 0.60 855.91 4.7E-4 0.7338 0.5606 1.01 0.5654 0.00E0 0.157
0.796
10.00 0.56 0.36 26.01 0.61 795.56 4.2E-4 0.3770 0.2629 1.01 0.2651 0.00E0 0.000
0.796
8.00 0.44 0.29 20.42 0.61 653.41 4.1E-4 1.0000 0.9584 1.01 0.9665 1.16E-2 0.345
1.141
6.00 0.33 0.21 20.59 0.61 564.25 3.5E-4 1.0000 0.9484 1.01 0.9564 1.15E-2 0.474
1.615
4.00 0.22 0.14 20.59 0.61 460.27 2.9E-4 1.0000 0.9484 1.01 0.9564 1.15E-2 0.391
2.006
2.00 0.11 0.07 20.59 0.62 325.47 2.1E-4 0.1056 0.1002 1.01 0.1010 0.00E0 0.319
2.325
0.00 0.00 0.00 20.59 0.62 3.12 2.0E-6 0.0010 0.0010 1.01 0.0010 0.00E0 0.000
2.325
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________
Settlement of Unsaturated Sands=2.325 in.
dsz is per each segment, dz=0.05 ft
dsp is per each print interval, dp=2.00 ft
S is cumulated settlement at this depth
Total Settlement of Saturated and Unsaturated Sands=2.994 in.
Differential Settlement=1.497 to 1.976 in.
Units: Unit: qc, fs, Stress or Pressure = atm (1.0581tsf); Unit Weight = pcf; Depth = ft;
Settlement = in.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
1 atm (atmosphere) = 1.0581 tsf(1 tsf = 1 ton/ft2 = 2 kip/ft2)
1 atm (atmosphere) = 101.325 kPa(1 kPa = 1 kN/m2 = 0.001 Mpa)
SPT Field data from Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
BPT Field data from Becker Penetration Test (BPT)
qc Field data from Cone Penetration Test (CPT) [atm (tsf)]
fs Friction from CPT testing [atm (tsf)]
Rf Ratio of fs/qc (%)
gamma Total unit weight of soil
gamma' Effective unit weight of soil
Fines Fines content [%]
D50 Mean grain size
Dr Relative Density
sigma Total vertical stress [atm]
sigma' Effective vertical stress [atm]
sigC' Effective confining pressure [atm]
August 23, 2022 Page 63
Project 22-02182
rd Acceleration reduction coefficient by Seed
a_max. Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) in ground surface
mZ Linear acceleration reduction coefficient X depth
a_min. Minimum acceleration under linear reduction, mZ
CRRv CRR after overburden stress correction, CRRv=CRR7.5 * Ksig
CRR7.5 Cyclic resistance ratio (M=7.5)
Ksig Overburden stress correction factor for CRR7.5
CRRm After magnitude scaling correction CRRm=CRRv * MSF
MSF Magnitude scaling factor from M=7.5 to user input M
CSR Cyclic stress ratio induced by earthquake
CSRfs CSRfs=CSR*fs1 (Default fs1=1)
fs1 First CSR curve in graphic defined in #9 of Advanced page
fs2 2nd CSR curve in graphic defined in #9 of Advanced page
F.S. Calculated factor of safety against liquefaction F.S.=CRRm/CSRsf
Cebs Energy Ratio, Borehole Dia., and Sampling Method Corrections
Cr Rod Length Corrections
Cn Overburden Pressure Correction
(N1)60 SPT after corrections, (N1)60=SPT * Cr * Cn * Cebs
d(N1)60 Fines correction of SPT
(N1)60f (N1)60 after fines corrections, (N1)60f=(N1)60 + d(N1)60
Cq Overburden stress correction factor
qc1 CPT after Overburden stress correction
dqc1 Fines correction of CPT
qc1f CPT after Fines and Overburden correction, qc1f=qc1 + dqc1
qc1n CPT after normalization in Robertson's method
Kc Fine correction factor in Robertson's Method
qc1f CPT after Fines correction in Robertson's Method
Ic Soil type index in Suzuki's and Robertson's Methods
(N1)60s (N1)60 after settlement fines corrections
CSRm After magnitude scaling correction for Settlement calculation CSRm=CSRsf / MSF*
CSRfs Cyclic stress ratio induced by earthquake with user inputed fs
MSF* Scaling factor from CSR, MSF*=1, based on Item 2 of Page C.
ec Volumetric strain for saturated sands
dz Calculation segment, dz=0.050 ft
dsz Settlement in each segment, dz
dp User defined print interval
dsp Settlement in each print interval, dp
Gmax Shear Modulus at low strain
g_eff gamma_eff, Effective shear Strain
g*Ge/Gm gamma_eff * G_eff/G_max, Strain-modulus ratio
ec7.5 Volumetric Strain for magnitude=7.5
Cec Magnitude correction factor for any magnitude
ec Volumetric strain for unsaturated sands, ec=Cec * ec7.5
NoLiq No-Liquefy Soils
References:
____________________________________________________________________________________
1. NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. Youd, T.L., and Idriss, I.M.,
eds., Technical Report NCEER 97-0022.
SP117. Southern California Earthquake Center. Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG
Special Publication 117, Guidelines for
Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California. University of Southern California. March
1999.
2. RECENT ADVANCES IN SOIL LIQUEFACTION ENGINEERING AND SEISMIC SITE RESPONSE EVALUATION, Paper
No. SPL-2, PROCEEDINGS: Fourth
International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil
Dynamics, San Diego, CA, March 2001.
3. RECENT ADVANCES IN SOIL LIQUEFACTION ENGINEERING: A UNIFIED AND CONSISTENT FRAMEWORK,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
Report No. EERC 2003-06 by R.B Seed and etc. April 2003.
Note: Print Interval you selected does not show complete results. To get complete results, you
should select 'Segment' in Print Interval (Item 12, Page C).
August 23, 2022 Page 64
Project 22-02182
Liq
u
e
f
y
P
r
o
C
i
v
i
l
T
e
c
h
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
U
S
A
w
w
w
.
c
i
v
i
l
t
e
c
h
.
c
o
m
CivilTech Corporation
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
1600 W Commonwealth Ave
22-02182 Plate A-1
Hole No.=B-2 Water Depth=20 ft Magnitude=7.3
Acceleration=0.734g
(ft)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
14 118 NoLq
14 NoLq
118 50
8 NoLq
120 NoLq
8 NoLq
135 33
22
126 NoLq
11 NoLq
127 NoLq
10 41
127
41
130 NoLq
NoLq
25 NoLq
NoLq
34 126 0
34
Raw Unit FinesSPT Weight %Shear Stress Ratio
CRR CSR fs1
Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential
0 2
Factor of Safety
0 51
Settlement
Saturated
Unsaturat.
S = 3.19 in.
0 (in.) 10
fs1=1.30
fs2=1
fs2
August 23, 2022 Page 65
Project 22-02182
*******************************************************************************************************
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS CALCULATION DETAILS
Copyright by CivilTech Software
www.civiltech.com
*******************************************************************************************************
Font: Courier New, Regular, Size 8 is recommended for this report.
Licensed to , 8/18/2022 3:32:32 PM
Input File Name: Z:\OUR DOCUMENTS\Liquefaction Analysis\22-02182-1 B-2.liq
Title: 1600 W Commonwealth Ave
Subtitle: 22-02182
Input Data:
Surface Elev.=
Hole No.=B-2
Depth of Hole=50.00 ft
Water Table during Earthquake= 20.00 ft
Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 42.00 ft
Max. Acceleration=0.73 g
Earthquake Magnitude=7.30
No-Liquefiable Soils: CL, OL are Non-Liq. Soil
1. SPT or BPT Calculation.
2. Settlement Analysis Method: Ishihara / Yoshimine
3. Fines Correction for Liquefaction: Stark/Olson et al.*
4. Fine Correction for Settlement: During Liquefaction*
5. Settlement Calculation in: All zones*
6. Hammer Energy Ratio, Ce = 1.25
7. Borehole Diameter, Cb= 1
8. Sampling Method, Cs= 1.2
9. User request factor of safety (apply to CSR) , User= 1.3
Plot two CSR (fs1=User, fs2=1)
10. Average two input data between two Depths: Yes*
* Recommended Options
In-Situ Test Data:
Depth SPT Gamma Fines
ft pcf %
__________________________________
0.00 14.00 118.00 NoLiq
2.50 14.00 118.00 NoLiq
5.00 14.00 118.00 50.00
7.50 8.00 118.00 NoLiq
10.00 8.00 120.00 NoLiq
12.50 8.00 120.00 NoLiq
15.00 8.00 135.00 33.00
17.50 22.00 135.00 33.00
20.00 22.00 126.00 NoLiq
22.50 11.00 126.00 NoLiq
25.00 11.00 127.00 NoLiq
27.50 10.00 127.00 41.00
30.00 10.00 127.00 41.00
32.50 41.00 127.00 41.00
35.00 41.00 130.00 NoLiq
37.50 41.00 130.00 NoLiq
40.00 25.00 130.00 NoLiq
42.50 25.00 130.00 NoLiq
45.00 34.00 126.00 0.00
47.50 34.00 126.00 0.00
50.00 34.00 126.00 0.00
__________________________________
Output Results:
Calculation segment, dz=0.050 ft
User defined Print Interval, dp=2.00 ft
Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA), a_max = 0.73g
CSR Calculation:
Depth gamma sigma gamma' sigma' rd mZ a(z) CSR x fs1 =CSRfs
ft pcf atm pcf atm g g
August 23, 2022 Page 66
Project 22-02182
_____________________________________________________________________________________
0.00 118.00 0.000 118.00 0.000 1.00 0.000 0.734 0.48 1.30 0.62
2.00 118.00 0.112 118.00 0.112 1.00 0.000 0.734 0.47 1.30 0.62
4.00 118.00 0.223 118.00 0.223 0.99 0.000 0.734 0.47 1.30 0.61
6.00 118.00 0.335 118.00 0.335 0.99 0.000 0.734 0.47 1.30 0.61
8.00 118.40 0.446 118.40 0.446 0.98 0.000 0.734 0.47 1.30 0.61
10.00 120.00 0.559 120.00 0.559 0.98 0.000 0.734 0.47 1.30 0.61
12.00 120.00 0.672 120.00 0.672 0.97 0.000 0.734 0.46 1.30 0.60
14.00 129.00 0.789 129.00 0.789 0.97 0.000 0.734 0.46 1.30 0.60
16.00 135.00 0.915 135.00 0.915 0.96 0.000 0.734 0.46 1.30 0.60
18.00 133.20 1.042 133.20 1.042 0.96 0.000 0.734 0.46 1.30 0.59
20.00 126.00 1.165 126.00 1.165 0.95 0.000 0.734 0.45 1.30 0.59
22.00 126.00 1.284 63.60 1.226 0.95 0.000 0.734 0.47 1.30 0.62
24.00 126.60 1.403 64.20 1.287 0.94 0.000 0.734 0.49 1.30 0.64
26.00 127.00 1.523 64.60 1.348 0.94 0.000 0.734 0.51 1.30 0.66
28.00 127.00 1.643 64.60 1.409 0.93 0.000 0.734 0.52 1.30 0.68
30.00 127.00 1.763 64.60 1.470 0.93 0.000 0.734 0.53 1.30 0.69
32.00 127.00 1.883 64.60 1.531 0.91 0.000 0.734 0.54 1.30 0.70
34.00 128.80 2.004 66.40 1.592 0.90 0.000 0.734 0.54 1.30 0.70
36.00 130.00 2.126 67.60 1.656 0.88 0.000 0.734 0.54 1.30 0.70
38.00 130.00 2.249 67.60 1.720 0.86 0.000 0.734 0.54 1.30 0.70
40.00 130.00 2.372 67.60 1.784 0.85 0.000 0.734 0.54 1.30 0.70
42.00 130.00 2.495 67.60 1.848 0.83 0.000 0.734 0.54 1.30 0.70
44.00 127.60 2.617 65.20 1.911 0.82 0.000 0.734 0.53 1.30 0.69
46.00 126.00 2.736 63.60 1.971 0.80 0.000 0.734 0.53 1.30 0.69
48.00 126.00 2.856 63.60 2.031 0.78 0.000 0.734 0.53 1.30 0.68
50.00 126.00 2.975 63.60 2.091 0.77 0.000 0.734 0.52 1.30 0.68
_____________________________________________________________________________________
CSR is based on water table at 20.00 during earthquake
CRR Calculation from SPT or BPT data:
Depth SPT Cebs Cr sigma' Cn (N1)60 Fines d(N1)60 (N1)60f CRR7.5
ft atm %
_____________________________________________________________________________________
0.00 14.00 1.50 0.75 0.000 1.70 26.78 NoLiq 7.20 33.98 2.00
2.00 14.00 1.50 0.75 0.112 1.70 26.78 NoLiq 7.20 33.98 2.00
4.00 14.00 1.50 0.75 0.223 1.70 26.78 70.40 7.20 33.98 2.00
6.00 11.60 1.50 0.75 0.335 1.70 22.18 70.40 7.20 29.38 0.39
8.00 8.00 1.50 0.75 0.446 1.50 13.47 NoLiq 7.20 20.67 0.22
10.00 8.00 1.50 0.85 0.559 1.34 13.65 NoLiq 7.20 20.85 0.23
12.00 8.00 1.50 0.85 0.672 1.22 12.44 NoLiq 7.20 19.64 0.21
14.00 8.00 1.50 0.85 0.789 1.13 11.49 60.20 7.20 18.69 0.20
16.00 13.60 1.50 0.95 0.915 1.05 20.26 33.00 6.72 26.98 0.32
18.00 22.00 1.50 0.95 1.042 0.98 30.71 46.60 7.20 37.91 2.00
20.00 22.00 1.50 0.95 1.165 0.93 29.05 NoLiq 7.20 36.25 2.00
22.00 13.20 1.50 0.95 1.284 0.88 16.60 NoLiq 7.20 23.80 0.26
24.00 11.00 1.50 0.95 1.403 0.84 13.23 NoLiq 7.20 20.43 0.22
26.00 10.60 1.50 0.95 1.523 0.81 12.24 77.00 7.20 19.44 0.21
28.00 10.00 1.50 1.00 1.643 0.78 11.70 41.00 7.20 18.90 0.20
30.00 10.00 1.50 1.00 1.763 0.75 11.30 41.00 7.20 18.50 0.20
32.00 34.80 1.50 1.00 1.883 0.73 38.04 41.00 7.20 45.24 2.00
34.00 41.00 1.50 1.00 2.004 0.71 43.45 76.99 7.20 50.65 2.00
36.00 41.00 1.50 1.00 2.126 0.69 42.18 NoLiq 7.20 49.38 2.00
38.00 37.80 1.50 1.00 2.249 0.67 37.81 NoLiq 7.20 45.01 2.00
40.00 25.00 1.50 1.00 2.372 0.65 24.35 NoLiq 7.20 31.55 2.00
42.00 25.00 1.50 1.00 2.495 0.63 23.74 NoLiq 7.20 30.94 2.00
44.00 30.40 1.50 1.00 2.559 0.63 28.50 40.42 7.20 35.70 2.00
46.00 34.00 1.50 1.00 2.620 0.62 31.51 0.00 0.00 31.51 2.00
48.00 34.00 1.50 1.00 2.680 0.61 31.15 0.00 0.00 31.15 2.00
50.00 34.00 1.50 1.00 2.740 0.60 30.81 0.00 0.00 30.81 2.00
_____________________________________________________________________________________
CRR is based on water table at 42.00 during In-Situ Testing
Factor of Safety, - Earthquake Magnitude= 7.30:
Depth sigC' CRR7.5 x Ksig =CRRv x MSF =CRRm CSRfs F.S.=CRRm/CSRfs
ft atm
________________________________________________________________________
0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.07 2.00 0.62 5.00 ^
2.00 0.07 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.07 2.00 0.62 5.00 ^
4.00 0.14 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.07 2.14 0.61 5.00
6.00 0.22 0.39 1.00 0.39 1.07 0.42 0.61 5.00
8.00 0.29 0.22 1.00 0.22 1.07 2.00 0.61 5.00 ^
10.00 0.36 0.23 1.00 0.23 1.07 2.00 0.61 5.00 ^
August 23, 2022 Page 67
Project 22-02182
12.00 0.44 0.21 1.00 0.21 1.07 2.00 0.60 5.00 ^
14.00 0.51 0.20 1.00 0.20 1.07 0.22 0.60 5.00
16.00 0.59 0.32 1.00 0.32 1.07 0.34 0.60 5.00
18.00 0.68 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.07 2.14 0.59 5.00
20.00 0.76 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.07 2.14 0.59 5.00
22.00 0.83 0.26 1.00 0.26 1.07 2.00 0.62 5.00 ^
24.00 0.91 0.22 1.00 0.22 1.07 2.00 0.64 5.00 ^
26.00 0.99 0.21 1.00 0.21 1.07 0.22 0.66 0.34 *
28.00 1.07 0.20 1.00 0.20 1.07 0.22 0.68 0.32 *
30.00 1.15 0.20 0.98 0.20 1.07 0.21 0.69 0.30 *
32.00 1.22 2.00 0.97 1.94 1.07 2.08 0.70 2.99
34.00 1.30 2.00 0.96 1.92 1.07 2.06 0.70 2.94
36.00 1.38 2.00 0.95 1.90 1.07 2.00 0.70 5.00 ^
38.00 1.46 2.00 0.94 1.88 1.07 2.00 0.70 5.00 ^
40.00 1.54 2.00 0.93 1.85 1.07 2.00 0.70 5.00 ^
42.00 1.62 2.00 0.92 1.83 1.07 2.00 0.70 5.00 ^
44.00 1.66 2.00 0.91 1.82 1.07 1.95 0.69 2.82
46.00 1.70 2.00 0.91 1.81 1.07 1.94 0.69 2.82
48.00 1.74 2.00 0.90 1.80 1.07 1.93 0.68 2.83
50.00 1.78 2.00 0.90 1.79 1.07 1.92 0.68 2.84
________________________________________________________________________
* F.S.<1: Liquefaction Potential Zone. (If above water table: F.S.=5)
^ No-liquefiable Soils or above Water Table.
(F.S. is limited to 5, CRR is limited to 2, CSR is limited to 2)
CPT convert to SPT for Settlement Analysis:
Fines Correction for Settlement Analysis:
Depth Ic qc/N60 qc1 (N1)60 Fines d(N1)60 (N1)60s
ft atm %
________________________________________________________________
0.00 - - - 33.98 NoLiq 0.00 33.98
2.00 - - - 33.98 NoLiq 0.00 33.98
4.00 - - - 33.98 70.40 0.00 33.98
6.00 - - - 29.38 70.40 0.00 29.38
8.00 - - - 20.67 NoLiq 0.00 20.67
10.00 - - - 20.85 NoLiq 0.00 20.85
12.00 - - - 19.64 NoLiq 0.00 19.64
14.00 - - - 18.69 60.20 0.00 18.69
16.00 - - - 26.98 33.00 0.00 26.98
18.00 - - - 37.91 46.60 0.00 37.91
20.00 - - - 36.25 NoLiq 0.00 36.25
22.00 - - - 23.80 NoLiq 0.00 23.80
24.00 - - - 20.43 NoLiq 0.00 20.43
26.00 - - - 19.44 77.00 0.00 19.44
28.00 - - - 18.90 41.00 0.00 18.90
30.00 - - - 18.50 41.00 0.00 18.50
32.00 - - - 45.24 41.00 0.00 45.24
34.00 - - - 50.65 76.99 0.00 50.65
36.00 - - - 49.38 NoLiq 0.00 49.38
38.00 - - - 45.01 NoLiq 0.00 45.01
40.00 - - - 31.55 NoLiq 0.00 31.55
42.00 - - - 30.94 NoLiq 0.00 30.94
44.00 - - - 35.70 40.42 0.00 35.70
46.00 - - - 31.51 0.00 0.00 31.51
48.00 - - - 31.15 0.00 0.00 31.15
50.00 - - - 30.81 0.00 0.00 30.81
________________________________________________________________
(N1)60s has been fines corrected in liquefaction analysis, therefore d(N1)60=0.
Fines=NoLiq means the soils are not liquefiable.
Settlement of Saturated Sands:
Settlement Analysis Method: Ishihara / Yoshimine
Depth CSRsf / MSF* =CSRm F.S. Fines (N1)60s Dr ec dsz dsp S
ft % % % in. in. in.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
49.95 0.68 1.00 0.68 2.84 0.00 30.82 91.93 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000
48.00 0.68 1.00 0.68 2.83 0.00 31.15 92.72 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000
46.00 0.69 1.00 0.69 2.82 0.00 31.51 93.57 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000
44.00 0.69 1.00 0.69 2.82 40.42 35.70 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000
42.00 0.70 1.00 0.70 5.00 NoLiq 30.94 92.22 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000
40.00 0.70 1.00 0.70 5.00 NoLiq 31.55 93.67 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000
August 23, 2022 Page 68
Project 22-02182
38.00 0.70 1.00 0.70 5.00 NoLiq 45.01 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000
36.00 0.70 1.00 0.70 5.00 NoLiq 49.38 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000
34.00 0.70 1.00 0.70 2.94 76.99 50.65 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000
32.00 0.70 1.00 0.70 2.99 41.00 45.24 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 0.000
30.00 0.69 1.00 0.69 0.30 41.00 18.50 67.82 2.328 1.4E-2 0.191 0.191
28.00 0.68 1.00 0.68 0.32 41.00 18.90 68.56 2.284 1.4E-2 0.553 0.745
26.00 0.66 1.00 0.66 0.34 77.00 19.44 69.53 2.224 1.3E-2 0.550 1.295
24.00 0.64 1.00 0.64 5.00 NoLiq 20.43 71.32 0.000 0.0E0 0.250 1.544
22.00 0.62 1.00 0.62 5.00 NoLiq 23.80 77.46 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 1.544
20.05 0.59 1.00 0.59 5.00 NoLiq 35.92 100.00 0.000 0.0E0 0.000 1.544
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Settlement of Saturated Sands=1.544 in.
qc1 and (N1)60 is after fines correction in liquefaction analysis
dsz is per each segment, dz=0.05 ft
dsp is per each print interval, dp=2.00 ft
S is cumulated settlement at this depth
Settlement of Unsaturated Sands:
Depth sigma' sigC' (N1)60s CSRsf Gmax g*Ge/Gm g_eff ec7.5 Cec ec dsz dsp S
ft atm atm atm % % in. in.
in.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________
20.00 1.16 0.76 36.25 0.59 1286.26 5.4E-4 0.2811 0.1138 1.01 0.1147 0.00E0 0.000
0.000
18.00 1.04 0.68 37.91 0.59 1234.99 5.0E-4 1.0000 0.3645 1.01 0.3676 4.41E-3 0.176
0.176
16.00 0.91 0.59 26.98 0.60 1033.19 5.3E-4 1.0000 0.6632 1.01 0.6689 8.03E-3 0.227
0.403
14.00 0.79 0.51 18.69 0.60 848.85 5.6E-4 1.0000 1.0756 1.01 1.0848 1.30E-2 0.463
0.865
12.00 0.67 0.44 19.64 0.60 796.78 5.1E-4 1.0000 1.0082 1.01 1.0167 0.00E0 0.369
1.234
10.00 0.56 0.36 20.85 0.61 741.00 4.6E-4 0.5826 0.5436 1.01 0.5482 0.00E0 0.000
1.234
8.00 0.45 0.29 20.67 0.61 660.30 4.1E-4 1.0000 0.9432 1.01 0.9512 0.00E0 0.000
1.234
6.00 0.33 0.22 29.38 0.61 642.84 3.2E-4 0.8200 0.4815 1.01 0.4856 5.83E-3 0.263
1.497
4.00 0.22 0.14 33.98 0.61 550.87 2.5E-4 1.0000 0.4617 1.01 0.4656 5.59E-3 0.073
1.571
2.00 0.11 0.07 33.98 0.62 389.53 1.8E-4 0.0408 0.0188 1.01 0.0190 0.00E0 0.078
1.649
0.00 0.00 0.00 33.98 0.62 3.69 1.7E-6 0.0010 0.0005 1.01 0.0005 0.00E0 0.000
1.649
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________
Settlement of Unsaturated Sands=1.649 in.
dsz is per each segment, dz=0.05 ft
dsp is per each print interval, dp=2.00 ft
S is cumulated settlement at this depth
Total Settlement of Saturated and Unsaturated Sands=3.193 in.
Differential Settlement=1.597 to 2.108 in.
Units: Unit: qc, fs, Stress or Pressure = atm (1.0581tsf); Unit Weight = pcf; Depth = ft;
Settlement = in.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
1 atm (atmosphere) = 1.0581 tsf(1 tsf = 1 ton/ft2 = 2 kip/ft2)
1 atm (atmosphere) = 101.325 kPa(1 kPa = 1 kN/m2 = 0.001 Mpa)
SPT Field data from Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
BPT Field data from Becker Penetration Test (BPT)
qc Field data from Cone Penetration Test (CPT) [atm (tsf)]
fs Friction from CPT testing [atm (tsf)]
Rf Ratio of fs/qc (%)
gamma Total unit weight of soil
gamma' Effective unit weight of soil
Fines Fines content [%]
D50 Mean grain size
Dr Relative Density
sigma Total vertical stress [atm]
sigma' Effective vertical stress [atm]
sigC' Effective confining pressure [atm]
August 23, 2022 Page 69
Project 22-02182
rd Acceleration reduction coefficient by Seed
a_max. Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) in ground surface
mZ Linear acceleration reduction coefficient X depth
a_min. Minimum acceleration under linear reduction, mZ
CRRv CRR after overburden stress correction, CRRv=CRR7.5 * Ksig
CRR7.5 Cyclic resistance ratio (M=7.5)
Ksig Overburden stress correction factor for CRR7.5
CRRm After magnitude scaling correction CRRm=CRRv * MSF
MSF Magnitude scaling factor from M=7.5 to user input M
CSR Cyclic stress ratio induced by earthquake
CSRfs CSRfs=CSR*fs1 (Default fs1=1)
fs1 First CSR curve in graphic defined in #9 of Advanced page
fs2 2nd CSR curve in graphic defined in #9 of Advanced page
F.S. Calculated factor of safety against liquefaction F.S.=CRRm/CSRsf
Cebs Energy Ratio, Borehole Dia., and Sampling Method Corrections
Cr Rod Length Corrections
Cn Overburden Pressure Correction
(N1)60 SPT after corrections, (N1)60=SPT * Cr * Cn * Cebs
d(N1)60 Fines correction of SPT
(N1)60f (N1)60 after fines corrections, (N1)60f=(N1)60 + d(N1)60
Cq Overburden stress correction factor
qc1 CPT after Overburden stress correction
dqc1 Fines correction of CPT
qc1f CPT after Fines and Overburden correction, qc1f=qc1 + dqc1
qc1n CPT after normalization in Robertson's method
Kc Fine correction factor in Robertson's Method
qc1f CPT after Fines correction in Robertson's Method
Ic Soil type index in Suzuki's and Robertson's Methods
(N1)60s (N1)60 after settlement fines corrections
CSRm After magnitude scaling correction for Settlement calculation CSRm=CSRsf / MSF*
CSRfs Cyclic stress ratio induced by earthquake with user inputed fs
MSF* Scaling factor from CSR, MSF*=1, based on Item 2 of Page C.
ec Volumetric strain for saturated sands
dz Calculation segment, dz=0.050 ft
dsz Settlement in each segment, dz
dp User defined print interval
dsp Settlement in each print interval, dp
Gmax Shear Modulus at low strain
g_eff gamma_eff, Effective shear Strain
g*Ge/Gm gamma_eff * G_eff/G_max, Strain-modulus ratio
ec7.5 Volumetric Strain for magnitude=7.5
Cec Magnitude correction factor for any magnitude
ec Volumetric strain for unsaturated sands, ec=Cec * ec7.5
NoLiq No-Liquefy Soils
References:
____________________________________________________________________________________
1. NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. Youd, T.L., and Idriss, I.M.,
eds., Technical Report NCEER 97-0022.
SP117. Southern California Earthquake Center. Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG
Special Publication 117, Guidelines for
Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California. University of Southern California. March
1999.
2. RECENT ADVANCES IN SOIL LIQUEFACTION ENGINEERING AND SEISMIC SITE RESPONSE EVALUATION, Paper
No. SPL-2, PROCEEDINGS: Fourth
International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil
Dynamics, San Diego, CA, March 2001.
3. RECENT ADVANCES IN SOIL LIQUEFACTION ENGINEERING: A UNIFIED AND CONSISTENT FRAMEWORK,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
Report No. EERC 2003-06 by R.B Seed and etc. April 2003.
Note: Print Interval you selected does not show complete results. To get complete results, you
should select 'Segment' in Print Interval (Item 12, Page C).
August 23, 2022 Page 70
Project 22-02182
August 23, 2022 Page 71
Project 22-02182
August 23, 2022 Page 72
Project 22-02182
August 23, 2022 Page 73
Project 22-02182
August 23, 2022 Page 74
Project 22-02182
August 23, 2022 Page 75
Project 22-02182
August 23, 2022 Page 76
Project 22-02182
APPENDIX IV
REFERENCES
1. Bowles, Joseph, E., Foundation Analysis and Design (McGraw-Hill, New York: 1988).
2. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, Maps of Known
Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada.
3. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, April 15, 1998, State of
California Seismic Hazard Zones Map of the Anaheim Quadrangle.
4. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Seismic Hazard
Zone Report for the Anaheim 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California. Seismic
Hazard Zone Report 03.
5. Monahan, Edward J., PE, Construction of and on Compacted Fills (Wiley & Sons, New York:
1986).
6. Naval Facilities Engineering Command Foundations and Earth Structures - Design Manual 7.02
(Naval Publications and Forms Center, Philadelphia: 1986).
7. Taylor, Donald W., Fundamentals of Soil Mechanics (Wiley & Sons, New York: 1948).
8. Terzaghi, Karl, Peck, Ralph B., Mesri, Gholamreza, Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice (Wiley
& Sons, New York: 1996).
(818) 994-8895
www.GeoConceptsInc.com
14428 Hamlin St., Suite 200, Van Nuys, CA 91401 + 22601 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 235, Malibu, CA 92065
December 7, 2022 Project 22-02182
Meta Housing Corporation
11150 West Olympic Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Subject: SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT No. 1
1600 W Commonwealth Ave
Fullerton, California
References:
1) Geotechnical Review Sheet by LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. for the City of Fullerton, dated
October 27, 2022.
2) Preliminary Geology and Geotechnical Engineering Investigation report by GeoConcepts,
Inc. covering the subject site dated August 23, 2022.
Dear Meta Housing Corporation:
Pursuant to your request, presented herein is a response to Reference 1. A copy of the review
sheet is attached. To facilitate the review, the following responses are provided per the review
letter:
Review Comment Responses:
Item #1: It is our understanding that the structural engineer of record will design the structure to
meet the requirements of the exception noted on Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16.
Item #2: Based on the distance of the subject site to the ocean, the potential for tsunami
inundation is nil.
Item #3: A site specific ground motion hazard analysis is not anticipated to be conducted;
therefore, the liquefaction analysis remains applicable.
Item #4: It is generally accepted that structures may be designed for settlement limits of 4 inches
total settlement and 2 inches differential settlement, which includes static and seismic
settlements. Based on the calculated seismic settlements and the recommended static
settlements, it is anticipated that the total will be less than the limits mentioned
December 7, 2022 Page 2
Project 22-02182
previously. Typically, mat foundations are used when settlements increase past 1.5 to 2
inches of total settlement and 0.75 to 1 inch of differential settlement. Foundation
designs for conventional and mat foundations were provided previously and may be
used by the project structural engineer.
Item #5: The mention of suitability in the Grading and Earthwork section is for suitability of the fill
after grading, not for the onsite soils to support the recommended structural fill and
foundations. Maximum density testing and corresponding density tests during grading
are recommended with a compilation of testing in a compaction report to properly assess
the suitability of the future compacted fill blanket.
Item #6: Based on lab testing and geologic observation of materials by the onsite engineer, the
soils are anticipated to be primarily silty/sandy soils. A hydrometer test can be conducted
by this office prior to grading in order to better understand the compaction effort required
or the entire site can be graded to a 95% maximum density.
Item #7: Based on lab testing and geologic observation of materials by the onsite engineer, the
soils are anticipated to be primarily silty/sandy soils. An expansion index test can be
conducted prior to grading to confirm expansion potential of the soils and ensure proper
moisture control of the fill.
Item #8: The Cal-OSHA type for the onsite soils is C.
Should you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact the
undersigned at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
GeoConcepts, Inc.
Raffi Dermendjian
Project Engineer
PE C. 88261
RD: 22-02182-3
Enclosures: Geotechnical Review Sheet by the City of Fullerton
Distribution: (1) Addressee
December 7, 2022 Page 3
Project 22-02182
December 7, 2022 Page 4
Project 22-02182